Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITIONS

Animals (Dissection)

Mr. Lomas: Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as chairman of the All Party Humane Research Group and vice-chairman of the Animal Welfare Group, I beg to present a Petition, signed by over 50,000 people, which reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of Citizens of Great Britain and Northern Ireland sheweth that the practice of dissection as included in the present school curriculum has a hardening effect upon the character of pupils involved, and necessitates the destruction of defenceless creatures when sufficient information for the education of those young people could be derived by more humane methods and the time and money spent thereon could be better diverted to providing more valuable and sympathetic education.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the practice of dissection upon animals be prohibited by law by your Honourable House.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Hairdressing

Mr. Skeet: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg to present a Petition on behalf of Mr. David Conclough and Mr. Leslie Dodds, the president and general secretary, respectively, of the National Hairdressers' Federation and others.
The Petition sheweth
That there are directives being considered by the European Economic Community relative to hairdressing activities and the free movement of labour.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and res-

trictions as arise under directives of the European Economic Community respecting the free movement of labour and the fixing of minimum standards of training shall in relation to hairdressing activities have no legal effect in the United Kingdom until the expiration of six years from the accepted entry date of Great Britain into the European Economic Community.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray.
Mr. Speaker, it should not be assumed that I wholly agree with the sentiments expressed in the Petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Mountaineering (Safety)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he hopes to make a statement on safety for school pupils and others in the mountains.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): I hope to issue early in the new school session a circular giving fresh guidance to education authorities on all aspects of safety in outdoor pursuits.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the circular be more than simply an expression of virtuous intent?

Mr. Monro: I certainly hope so. My right hon. Friend and I are determined that while we want to see an increase in outdoor activities at school, we do not want any unnecessary loss of life. Besides this circular, at my request the three sports councils, with the co-operation of my hon. Friend who has responsibility for sport in England, and the Welsh Office, will co-operate in a publicity campaign this autumn indicating the dangers of mountaineering.

Fishing Vessels (Grants)

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of fishing vessel grants and subsidies.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): A revised


subsidy scheme for the inshore industry was approved by the House yesterday. My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to change the arrangements for grants and loans for the construction of fishing vessels.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Under-Secretary remember that in the flush of enthusiasm for killing off lame ducks the Government cut the development grant to the industry for new building by 10 per cent.? Now, having recanted in every other field of investment decision, why have the Government left the white fish industry as the only disadvantaged industry with the cut not restored?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is casting a very unfair reflection on the industry, bearing in mind that more applications have been received and approved in the first six months of this year than in the whole of 1970. The kind of picture which the hon. Gentleman presents is not true of the Scottish industry.

Mr. Buchan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friend did not paint a picture of the industry? He said that in every other industry these grants have been restored and no argument has been advanced for maintaining the present cut. This is what the Under-Secretary has to defend—not the fact that thanks to our subsidy basis in the past the industry is flourishing.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, particularly as he is a former Minister. There has never been a direct relationship between grants for fishing vessels and those available for development areas. It would be to the detriment of the fishing industry as a whole if the grants were on the same basis as for the development areas. The fishing industry is important on its own account; it is given its own treatment and it is not necessarily tied to other things.

Industrial Pollution (Dust and Grit Emission)

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will conduct a survey in the industrial part of Scotland, using his Alkali Inspectorate, to inquire into plants which are emitting dust and grit which are proving a danger

to health or causing physical irritation, with a view to establishing the size of the problem and therefore determining to what extent his Alkali Inspectorate needs to be strengthened to deal with the problem.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): All works registered under the Alkali Acts are already subject to continuous inspection by the Inspectorate of Industrial Pollution. In addition, my right hon. Friend's Department has been joining in a comprehensive review of air pollution monitoring in Britain, and an announcement will be made when the results of the review have been considered.

Mr. Hamilton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but I have met the alkali inspector in my constituency along with the management of a certain plant belonging to the British Steel Corporation and I wish the Minister to note that virtually in Lanarkshire as a whole we are much bothered by this problem. Irrespective of what the alkali inspectors, the public health inspector and the medical officer of health may say, none of the things we want are being done. Has the Scottish Office any power to do something about this problem, which is causing a great deal of irritation and, most important of all, is injurious to the health of people in the various localities affected?

Mr. Younger: I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's close interest in this matter and of the problem of his constituency. It is the policy of alkali inspectors to contact the firms concerned when there are problems of this kind and to press them as hard as they can within reason to take action. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree, in the case of the Clydesmill Works, that special efforts have been made by the people running the plant. After this winter, when the intermediate pressure boiler capacity is taken out altogether, things should improve there. I shall keep the matter under very close watch.

North Sea Oil

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to make an official visit to the Scandinavian countries.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I have no plans at present to do so.

Mr. Douglas: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will concede that that is an unfortunate reply. Will he make plans to go to Norway to examine, in particular, Norway's regulations in respect of North Sea oil and its Continental Shelf which clearly show that the Norwegian Government have plans for keeping a part of their Continental Shelf within governmental control and also for ensuring that Norwegian producers have proper treatment from the firms which operate on their Continental Shelf?

Mr. Campbell: I am already aware, without going there, that there are no formal conditions laid down by Norway about the use of Norwegian equipment and that the present Norwegian rate of royalty is 10 per cent. as opposed to 12½ per cent. in this country.

Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable changes are at present being made by Norway, and that in one case it has increased the royalty to 12½ per cent.? Would it not be a good idea if the Secretary of State went? Ministers have gone to various Scandinavian countries in the past in respect of our fishing interests. We now have a new and potentially very great interest. Will the right hon. Gentleman think about it again?

Mr. Campbell: I have not ruled out going to Norway, and I should very much like to go. I have been somewhat occupied in the House in recent weeks and have certainly not been able to go. We should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman about the statement in the policy discussion document called "Labour's Programme for Britain" to the effect that the present licences would all be taken away as soon as possible by a Labour Government, especially since many of them were issued during the period of the last Labour Government in 1969, and the statement threatens to bring to a grinding halt the whole process of exploration and deprive many people of jobs.

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will arrange for the Scottish Development Department to study the feasibility of allocating Gov-

ernment development contracts to Scottish firms to help them acquire the expertise required for the manufacture of equipment for the North Sea oil industry.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: One of the intentions of the current Government study into the opportunities for British industry arising from the oil developments is to ascertain in what way it would be possible to encourage and assist British firms to participate.

Mr. Strang: Will the Secretary of State agree that the major challenge facing the Government at present in relation to North Sea oil is to do everything they possibly can to ensure that Scottish firms make the maximum contribution to the hundreds of millions of pounds worth of equipment and services now being purchased by the oil companies? If the Government can provide substantial support in the form of development contracts to the computer industry and the aircraft industry, is it not reasonable to urge in the case of the oil industry that Scottish firms should obtain similar development contracts to enable them to acquire the expertise as quickly as possible?

Mr. Campbell: I agree on the first point. It is one of our prime objectives. The good example which some Scottish firms have shown and are showing of going out vigorously seeking business in North Sea oil developments should be followed by others, and I entirely agree about that. Scottish industry has told us that the best way in which the Government can help is by quickly providing the infrastructure, and this is what we are doing.

Mr. Costain: Is it not ironical that the expertise of Scottish engineers is well known in operations abroad yet the oil companies tend to think they have no experience in this sphere because they have not done this particular work before? Will my right hon. Friend see what he can do to encourage developments in this way, not only by Government contracts but by encouraging those who have licences to use Scottish firms?

Mr. Campbell: Yes. Sir, I can promise my hon. Friend that. I have said this before. The drilling of the sea bed is a particular kind of operation which the Americans have been doing for 20 years or more and they have become experts at


it, but we can co-operate with them and then ourselves specialise in the techniques which are required for the North Sea.

Mr. Ross: Surely this is the whole point. The experience of the Americans has hitherto been in fairly shallow waters. We are now moving into deeper waters and a new technology is developing. Would it not be worth while, through a system of development contracts, or additional support to universities, for Scotland to get into this work? This kind of experience and work may be even more lasting than the oil itself.

Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman is repeating some of the words that have used in recent months, which is a change, because last year I was pointing out that the depth of water and the formidable conditions in the North Sea required an advanced technology, some of which has not yet been developed. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the report today about Heriot-Watt University holding a symposium on the subject later this year.

Mr. Ross: But what are the Government going to do about it?

Mr. Campbell: The Government are already doing something about it, as the right lion. Gentleman would know if only he would listen to some of the things that we have said during debates, for example during last Thursday's debate. All he does is to be hypnotised by his own words.

Sheriff Court, Glasgow

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the estimated cost of constructing the new sheriff court in Glasgow on a cleared site; what is the estimated cost of construction if the church at present on the proposed site is to be preserved; and what is the proposed date for starting construction.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Estimated costs of alternative ways of siting the new sheriff court house are being prepared by the Glasgow Court House Commissioners. The starting date depends on the resolution of the planning issues and the speed of negotiations for acquisition of the land.

Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Gentleman will be aware from Written Answers

given earlier this week that this is probably the busiest sheriff court in the country, dealing with 34,000 cases last year, for example, and that there is a waiting period of three to four months for an accused person to come to trial. Will the Minister make himself fully aware of the urgent need to press ahead with the construction of the new sheriff court as quickly as possible?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern for the need to provide a new sheriff court in Glasgow, though I think it fair to say that any delays which take place in Glasgow are not related only to the question of accommodation. During last year, as the hon. Gentleman knows from figures given to him, a considerable effort was made to try to clear the backlog of cases. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern and, in so far as we can help, we shall do all we can to speed up the process.

Mr. Galbraith: In his plans to rebuild the sheriff court on a new site, will my hon. Friend resist any attempt to destroy the church which is at present on part on the site, since it would be a most valuable feature of the scenery of Glasgow, which needs to have this sort of building preserved?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I note what my hon. Friend says. Since formal application for a listed building consent may be made, it would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage on the merits of retaining the church or its tower.

Mr. Hannan: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said in the latter part of his reply, but will he bear in mind that the court commissioners are now the responsibility of the Scottish Office and that the appointment of sheriffs substitute some years ago in an effort to clear the backlog of cases has not met the need? It is now 10 years since some of us were pressing for more accommodation in this area. Despite the assurance which has been given, will the hon. Gentleman take the matter up with the local authority at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: What the hon. Gentleman says is not entirely correct. Part II of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1971, does not come into effect until 1st April, 1973, and it is not till


then that responsibility passes to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Carmichael: This is an important building on an important site in the centre of Glasgow. Will it be possible for the public to make comments on the plans when they are produced? Second, will particular attention be paid to the need in the new court building for decent accommodation for witnesses, since the existing conditions are quite abominable?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There are issues other than that concerning the church. For example, there are plans to divert a sewer and major questions of land acquisition. However, I note what the hon. Gentleman says. As regards accommodation for witnesses, I could not agree more that it is essential in a modern court house that proper provision be made, and throughout Scotland, where we are able to do so, we are trying to improve it.

Pre-School Playgroups

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the meeting his Department had on 6th July with the Scottish Pre-School Playgroups Association.

Mr. Monro: As a result of this meet-my right hon. Friend has authorised a capital grant of £2,500 to the association and an increased grant towards current expenditure at the rate of £8,000 for a full year. I welcome the association's plans for the expansion of playgroups.

Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his announcement of a further allocation of resources for pre-school education will be welcomed by mothers of young children and all the people interested in education? Can he tell the House to what extent the Opposition assisted him in getting this further financial allocation by choosing one of their Estimate days for a debate on pre-school education in the Scottish Grand Committee?

Mr. Monro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interest in this subject and the speeches he has made in the House. The present Government listen to all shades of opinion.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many social work

departments and education authorities have now replied to his request for information on proposals they have for further development of pre-school playgroups; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Monro: So far three local authorities have sent my right hon. Friend their proposals and he expects to receive the remainder by the autumn. The first indications are that local authorities will give increasing support to the provision of playgroups.

Mr. Eadie: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's reply, will he consider issuing a fresh circular to local authorities giving them advice on how to assist in increasing the number of pre-school playgroups, with particular emphasis on providing premises for the groups?

Mr. Monro: When all the authorities have replied, which should be by the autumn, we shall look at the matter very carefully to see whether further information would be of benefit to them.

Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further information he has now received from local authorities in Scotland regarding the effect of the implementation of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act.

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further consultations he now proposes to hold with local authorities regarding the implementation of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act.

Mr. Younger: I met representatives of the Scottish local authority associations on 31st July to discuss aspects of the implementation of the Act. Further consultations will be held as necessary.

Mr. Ewing: When the Under-Secretary has these further consultations will he discuss this matter with local authorities, and particularly with Stirling Town Council, which on balance is an anti-Labour local authority, which has decided to include in its rent books a notice that the rents are being increased, not on the will of the council but as a direct result of the Tory Government's legislation? Will he recognise that concern is felt by


local authorities in Scotland about the impact which this Measure will have on their tenants?

Mr. Younger: It is not for me to say what Stirling Town Council should or should not do in the terms of what it says to its tenants, but I am glad that the council has succeeded in agreeing that it will implement the Act, as the vast majority of local authorities in Scotland have done.

Mr. MacArthur: Does my hon. Friend agree that every responsible tenant and every sensible local authority will welcome the implementation of this Act, which gives much help to those in need?

Mr. Younger: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend is correct. I am sure that many local authorities will have realised the benefits being given for the first time to people by way of rent allowances which they have never had before, better slum clearance, a universal rent rebate scheme and the saving on the rates which will be worth while. All these things will be attractive to many people in Scotland.

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many housing authorities have now informed him that they will not implement the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill when it becomes law.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: A small number of authorities expressed opposition to the Bill before its enactment. Since it received Royal Assent I have received no intimation that any local authority intends not to implement its provisions.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fact that he has not so far received representations does not mean that opposition to this Act among the local authorities has lessened in any way? Will he undertake to have further discussions with the local authorities to see whether it is possible to postpone the application of the Act and in any event, before he decides to take any default action under the Act, will he be prepared to report to the House of Commons?

Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary had a meeting only the day before yesterday with local authority representatives about the working of the

Act. I and all my hon. Friends will do all we can to help local authorities in understanding and operating the Act. I cannot give the undertaking about reporting to the House because the House is supposed to be in recess as from the end of next week.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my right hon. Friend try to find out how many tenants, whether of private accommodation or local authority housing, living in areas controlled by such authorities stand to have their rents reduced by the Act? Will he publicise that information so that if there should be any delays in the receipt of those reductions those concerned will know who is responsible?

Mr. Campbell: I will certainly consider that. It is well known that a large proportion of public authority tenants will benefit from this Measure. Those who are most in need will have their rents reduced or rents will not go up, or there will be special rebates. Those private tenants who never had a rebate scheme before will have a rent allowance scheme. It would be folly to deny them the benefits of the scheme. This is hypothetical, however, because no such situation has yet arisen.

Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the people affected are not paying any rent at present because of the provisions of other Acts? Is he further aware that over 90 per cent. of councils already have a rebate scheme and in many cases the Government's rebate scheme is very much worse than many of these? Bearing in mind that the Act has been in force for only six days, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not surprising that he has not received any representations? Many local authorities will also be on holiday. Will he tell us whether it is his intention to send out circulars about this to local authorities, telling them how he will construe his duty under the Act and what he proposes to do? Will he send copies of all such circulars to every Scottish Member?

Mr. Campbell: As regards the right hon. Gentleman's last point, we are sending out circulars to supplement the information already passed to the local authorities and I will certainly consider sending copies to Members of Parliament. As regards the entering into force


of the Act, I have already made special arrangements by a commencement order that it enters into force tomorrow so as to give local authorities about four weeks' notice before 1st September, which is the date when notice would have to he given about rents to tenants. As regards rents, not only will there be the same number of people—probably more—who do not pay rent because of supplementary benefits, but under the Act there will be nil rents and there will be rent rebates on a standard scale throughout Scotland, not limited to those local authorities which at the moment have miscellaneous and various schemes.

Housing (Improvement Grants)

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to amend the housing improvement grant scheme so as to direct it towards the provision of help to those who are in need; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: The purpose of the improvement grant scheme, since its introduction in 1949, has been to secure the modernisation of as many houses as possible, and my right hon. Friend has no proposals for amending it.

Mr. Hunter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the housing improvement grant scheme is being abused? Is he not aware that old or derelict houses can be purchased and improved for use as a second home or a holiday home and then sold for a substantial profit? Does he not know of this practice? Will he look at the matter with a view to curbing this kind of activity and allow those who require a better home to get the substantial assistance that is available?

Mr. Younger: Local authorities have discretion to refuse grants if they think it is unreasonable that they should be granted, perhaps for some of the reasons which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I prefer to look at it this way: that every house improved is a house that is there to help the housing problems of those who are homeless, and that is very much to be welcomed.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Has my hon. Friend noticed the wording of the hon. Gentleman's Question? Is it not totally contrary to the policy of the Labour

Party that assistance in matters of houssing should be concentrated on those in need?

Mr. Younger: I could not hope to be regarded as an authority on the policies of the Labour Party, but it appears to me that the reference to those in need shows that the Labour Party is at last being converted to the principle which we have brought in in our Bill.

Mr. John Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the Tory Party's policy in applying a means test to council tenants but applying no means test to the people who apply for and get housing improvement grants?

Mr. Younger: There are no means tests either for council tenants or for private owners in the matter of improvement grants. If the hon. Gentleman does not like that, he should have pressed his right hon. Friends who introduced the improvement grant scheme to introduce that element into it. My view is that every house improved is a house to help the housing shortage, and I should have thought the whole House would have welcomed that.

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now seek to introduce legislation to prevent local authorities from refusing to give 75 per cent. house improvement grants for other than owner-occupied property.

Mr. Younger: It is the Government's desire that as many homes as possible should be improved with the higher rate of improvement grant, whatever their ownership. If I saw any widespread evidence that tenants were being denied this benefit I would of course consider what action to take.

Mr. Sproat: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is indeed such evidence? Is he aware that thousands of tenants in Aberdeen are being denied the chance to improve their homes through a recent decision of the Aberdeen Council housing sub-committee and that it is the poorest tenants who are hardest hit? Will he undertake to examine the legislation closely to see how it can be amended to ensure that the council does not abuse the Government's intention to have people improve their own homes?

Mr. Younger: I shall certainly look very closely at the evidence my hon. Friend has sent me, for which I am grateful. I should deprecate it if it were the case that any local authority is denying the benefits of improvement grants to all tenants purely because they are tenants. That would be a heartless idea.

Mr. David Steel: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to see how the excellent improvement grant scheme is working under different local authorities? Is he aware that in my area houses and cottages in villages and towns are tending to be bought up as holiday cottages while houses in remote areas, which would be perfectly good holiday houses but which will never be occupied by local people, are not coming on to the market? Is there not a need to see how the scheme is operating and how local authorities could be encouraged to improve it?

Mr. Younger: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. As I said in answer to an earlier Question, local authorities have discretion not to give discretionary improvement grants if they think that the circumstances do not warrant them. I hope that that discretion will be used in a sensible manner.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Minister aware that what Aberdeen Town Council is doing is protecting tenants in Aberdeen from the avaricious landlords who are buying up streets of houses, converting them and then letting them at exorbitant rents or selling them, totally abusing the system of improvement grants? Such landlords have no concern for the tenants but are concerned solely to make the fastest buck possible. The decision of Aberdeen Town Council has the widest possible support in the City.

Mr. Younger: I will not comment, without making inquiries, on whether the hon. Gentlemen's highly-coloured description of what is going on in Aberdeen is correct. It occurs to me that the only thing from which the corporation is protecting tenants is receiving the benefits of having their houses improved. I should have thought that to be very unfortunate.

Sub-Standard Dwellings

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total

number of dwellings below the tolerable standard in Scotland at the latest convenient date; how many of these are intended for demolition; and how many for improvement.

Mr. Younger: I estimate that there are about 200,000 houses which do not meet the tolerable standard, and that about one-quarter of them might be improved.

Mr. Steel: In the middle of June when I last asked a Question on this subject the hon. Gentleman said that about 70 housing authorities in Scotland had not completed the first surveys under the 1969 Act. When does the hon. Gentleman expect the surveys to be completed so that he will no longer work on estimates but on figures?

Mr. Younger: It would be misleading to suggest that we could ever get to the point where we had complete and absolutely accurate up-to-date figures for this from the whole of Scotland, because the situation is changing all the time. As I said on the last occasion, most of those who had not replied represent the smaller authorities which do not have the same scale of problem as the main authorities. It is our policy to encourage all housing authorities to work as quickly as possible either to improve or, if that is impossible, to demolish all houses below tolerable standards, and we are giving quite a lot of help to local authorities to do this.

Mr. Sproat: Does my hon. Friend agree that the shocking number of houses in Scotland below the tolerable standard is one of the strongest proofs of the need to introduce the new Housing Bill?

Mr. Younger: I have always felt that the housing problem in Scotland, which has been tackled by so many people with so many good intentions, needs a new look, and I am grateful that the new Measure enables us to do that.

Hotels (Investment)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the ratio of the investment of public funds by the Highlands and Islands Development Board in the hotel industry, and the number of jobs resulting.

Mr. Younger: Yes, having regard to the indirect contributions to local employment which hotel projects also make.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I appreciate that argument, but is my hon. Friend really satisfied that instances such as the presentation of a cheque for £130,000 to Sir Charles Forte in respect of one hotel, which in all probability would have been built anyway, is really a good way in which to spend taxpayers' money?

Mr. Younger: There are two points on that. First, I understand that the Forte organisation was statutorily entitled to that money, and it was therefore not up to me or anyone else to criticise the organisation for getting it. Secondly, one has to look not only at the jobs given by such items as hotel projects but at their general effect on the local economy, and the effect on some of the remote areas of an hotel which might be comparatively modest in the City of London is very great indeed.

Mr. Lawson: When the hon. Gentleman is considering making these grants for hotels, will he by some means institute some protection or clause to ensure that an hotel in the Highlands can give a hot meal of some kind so long as the bar in the hotel is open?

Mr. Younger: That is a very entertaining suggestion. If the hon. Gentleman takes it up with the Scottish Tourist Board, the board might be willing to discuss it with him.

Highlands and Islands Development Board (Vice-Chairmanship)

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he appointed a retired naval officer to the vice-chairmanship of the Highlands and Islands Development Board.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Because he was the best available person for this full-time post, on leaving the Navy last month at the age of 51. Rear-Admiral Dunbar-Nasmith will be the youngest of the seven members of the board and 14 years younger than the person he is succeeding.

Mr. Sillars: Is it true that the Secretary of State never even interviewed the rear-admiral before sending the letter inviting him to take up the appointment, according to what the rear-admiral him-

self has said in a public statement? Is not this a scandalous and disgraceful way to handle an extremely important appointment in Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: That is incorrect. I saw the admiral several times in the period before appointing him and spoke to him also about the appointment. There is no dispute among those who know him about the ability he has shown over a wide field and in Scotland in the past three years, when he has been Flag Officer. The Highlands and Islands Development Board is doing better now and is held in higher regard in the area than ever before.

Mr. Brewis: Do not such questions and the remarks made in a recent debate show a desire by the Opposition to denigrate ex-serving officers?

Mr. Campbell: I completely reject the contention that someone from the North of Scotland who has excelled in a profession which has taken him further afield should be disqualified from serving the North of Scotland.

Mr. Buchan: In view of the Secretary of State's last remarks, will he now confirm that the Government intend to appoint a former chairman of the board to be Admiral of the Home Fleet?

Mr. Campbell: That would be a co-incidence which I believe would have a probability of about one in a million.

Employment Patterns

Mr. John Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will cause the Scottish Development Department to make a study of the future employment patterns in Central and West Scotland and their impact on the Scottish economy.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: This is already an integral part of the studies being carried out by the West Central Scotland Plan Steering Committee.

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although at the last election his party promised to reduce unemployment in Scotland, in June, 1970, unemployment in my area was 4·7 per cent. but is now 9 per cent., almost double the figure of two years ago? Can he tell my constituents when it is likely that unemployment will fall to the level at


which it was when the present disastrous Government took office?

Mr. Campbell: Although the hon. Gentleman has not been a Member of the House very long he should know by now that no Government or Minister makes forecasts about unemployment. When we came into office we drew attention to the fact that unemployment was rising and that we intended to tackle it as one of our major purposes. We have been doing so.

Mr. Smith: It has nearly doubled.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present Government have done more than any previous Government to try to steer industry to the West of Scotland, and to aid it there, but that we have a serious problem with administrative offices in that the nationalised industries tend to close down their offices in the West of Scotland, or to reduce their status, and to centralise activities down South? Will he take up the matter with the boards of the nationalised industries?

Mr. Campbell: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is "Yes". As regards offices, I know of my hon. Friend's concern about the nationalised industries. I am also concerned about the matter and am taking appropriate action. As regards offices in general, my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that offices are being moved to Scotland. Not only the Forestry Commission but the White Fish Authority are going to Scotland, and only recently the proposal for a Government office employing about 1,000 people was announced for Cumbernauld.

Mr. Ross: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed or heard about the position in Glasgow, where about half the office development is still unoccupied? Is not this an indication of the Government's failure to achieve the expansion in Scotland that we expected? The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government have made the problem of unemployment one of their first tasks, but it has risen to 138,000, an unheard of figure during summer. When shall we see some results from the Government's so-called action?

Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Industry Bill, which

has just passed through this House, is specially designed to help—

Mr. Ross: The Government have had two years.

Mr. Campbell: The Bill is to meet the present situation. We are introducing measures to meet the situation as it exists. It changes from year to year. The right hon. Gentleman should know that Glasgow is a special problem. It is affected by the high rates which commerce bears in Glasgow. That is something we are trying to do something about.

Hampden Park

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on his discussions with interested parties regarding the future of Hampden Park.

Mr. Monro: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) on 24th May, 1972. I understand that the discussions referred to in that answer are proceeding but no proposals have yet been put to my right hon. Friend. [Vol. 837, c. 372–3.]

Mr. Taylor: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that he regards as a real priority that Hampden Park should be developed as a great international football stadium? After the discussions between the Queen's Park Football Club and the Scottish Football Association, if they bring a proposition to him to develop and improve the stadium, will he not close his mind to Government financial assistance?

Mr. Monro: I know of my hon. Friend's interest, and the interest of all the people of Scotland, in Hampden Park. If Queen's Park, the SFA and perhaps even Glasgow Corporation come together to talk to me about the matter, my mind will be open to anything they wish to say.

Mr. James Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the introduction of VAT and the implementation of the Wheatley Committee proposals will place Hampden Park in an impossible financial position? Is he aware that many of the clubs in Scotland have contributed to the upkeep of Hampden Park and to bringing it up to the status required for an international stadium in Scotland? On


that basis, is he not prepared to make representations to the Treasury to ensure that Hampden Park gets the necessary money and that it receives a contribution from the central Government to ensure that it is a focal point for football in Scotland?

Mr. Monro: The points the hon. Gentleman has made were considered very fully during the passage of the Finance Bill, so the Treasury is well aware of his views. I have nothing to add on the question of VAT in relation to Hampden Park.

Charities (Registration)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now received the report from the Scottish Council of Social Service about the need for registration of charities in Scotland; and whether he accepts its recommendations.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. Friend received this report in May and is studying its implications.

Mr. Hannan: Can the Under-Secretary go a bit further and say whether the Government are aware of the difficulties confronting the general public and social workers in discovering information about these trusts because of the absence of a central register? Is it proposed to do anything for Scotland by way of extending to Scotland the 1960 England and Wales Act dealing with charities?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We have to appreciate that this report raises very big questions and it would be premature to say anything further at this stage until the study is completed. Not only are a large number of charities involved but the rating and taxation authorities are also involved and this warrants very deep study.

Rent Increases (New Towns)

Mr. McCartney: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in view of the hardship of low income group tenants in the new towns as a result of recent rent increases, if he will instruct the development corporations of the new towns to submit modified schemes of rent rebate to conform with the Government's policy that rent increases shall not be more than £39 in any one year.

Mr. Younger: No tenant will have his standard rent increased by more than £32 in the first year or £39 in subsequent years; and because of the protection given by the rent rebate scheme no tenant whose household income is low should have to pay actual rent increases higher than these amounts.

Mr. McCartney: Does the Under-Secretary realise that in practice new town tenants in the lower income group will be asked to pay higher figures than he has given?

Mr. Younger: If the hon. Gentleman can produce to me any more evidence of this I will be glad to look at it. As he knows from the provisions in the Act, these are the limits laid down and they should be observed. I am sure he will have noticed that under paragraph 16 of the Second Schedule to the Act there are transitional relief arrangements to limit increases for people who find the new scheme less advantageous than the old to amounts of 30p per week during the transitional period. Altogether this amounts to a very fair protection for those on low incomes.

Robert Glendinning

Mr. Ronald King Murray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will inquire into the background leading to the appearance of Robert Glendinning in the High Court at Edinburgh on 26th July, 1972, particularly having regard to his previous history and the need to protect the public.

Mr. Monro: Robert Glendinning appeared before a children's hearing in East Kilbride on 9th November, 1971, on charges of assault and was placed under the supervision of the local authority social work department. I understand that a full psychiatric report was available to the hearing, and it was one of the conditions of the supervision requirement that he should attend a psychiatric clinic. On 28th March, 1972, the supervision requirement was reviewed by a hearing which decided that it should be continued. My inquiries have shown that the boy was given the supervision and treatment required by the decision of the hearing.

Mr. Murray: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that reply raises as many questions as it answers? Will he confirm


that after this boy had appeared on no fewer than four occasions on charges involving violence, one of them I am told involving brandishing a knife, an assessment was made that this boy was a danger to the public? If he can confirm that, will he take steps to consult his right hon. Friend and the Lord Advocate to see whether amendment of the law is necessary to give the Lord Advocate greater discretion to order proceedings on indictment?

Mr. Monro: I note what the hon. and learned Gentleman says and I will report it to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. From the information in my possession, I feel that the hon. and learned Gentleman has somewhat exaggerated the situation. We deeply regret the murder that took place, but at the same time I want to stand up for the system of children's hearings. Look at it in a hypothetical way. If the children's hearing system had not been in force, the boy would have gone to a juvenile court and in all probability would have been placed on probation. I do not think that what occurred was the fault of the children's hearing.

Mr. Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that last point is the relevant one? Would he agree that this case has brought unfortunate publicity and some bad attacks on the system of children's hearings? Will he take this opportunity to confirm the Government's confidence and to accept an expression of our confidence in the system of children's hearings?

Mr. Monro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that point and I am glad to accept it.

House Prices

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average price of a new house in June, 1970; and what is the average price for the latest convenient date.

Mr. Younger: The average price of new private houses in Scotland mortgaged with building societies was £5,438 in 1970 and £5,846 in the 12 months to 31st March, 1972.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is now becoming impossible for young people to get the money to buy their own homes? Follow-

ing the introduction of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, will he now agree that the Government should be seeking to ensure that young people can get the necessary mortgage, bearing in mind that once the Act is in operation local authorities will not be able to build houses for those in need?

Mr. Younger: I could not accept the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. We are expecting to see an acceleration of local authority building in the next two years. As for the mortgage point, I have been assured by the building societies, and I have no evidence to the contrary, that they have adequate funds to meet all requests of a reasonable nature within Scotland.

Mr. Hamilton: On low wages?

Mr. Younger: There is a strong demand for private houses in Scotland coupled with a very high level of building. Hon. Gentlemen may have noticed that in Paisley, although there are a number of council houses lying empty, there is strong demand for houses put up for sale by the corporation.

Mr. Strang: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that building land in Edinburgh is now selling at the outrageous price of over £40,000 an acre? For how long will the Government tolerate land owners and land speculators holding the community to ransom in this way?

Mr. Younger: It would be misleading to suggest that all building land in Edinburgh or anywhere else is that price, and it is well known in every country that the most attractive sites command higher prices. But it does not do to exaggerate the question of house prices in Scotland because, according to the latest figures given by the Nationwide Building Society, the price of houses in the United Kingdom as a whole has been rising by about 17 or 18 per cent. whereas the rate of increase in Scotland has been only about 10 per cent.

Land Use Planning (Oil Refineries)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the planning authorities in Scotland which are preparing to schedule land for planning purposes as suitable for oil refinery development and allied industries.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I am aware that Ayr and Stirling County Councils are considering this. Ross and Cromarty County Council has already zoned land for this purpose at Invergordon.

Mr. Douglas: Does the Secretary of State concede that the local authorities are playing their part in scheduling land for oil refining purposes? Is it not up to the Government to enter into discussions with companies, particularly those which are likely to produce oil from the North Sea, in order to get oil refining capacity increased in Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: The Regional Development Division of the Scottish Office particularly has been and is in touch with companies which have approached it with this interest in mind. We have also been preparing the kind of general information which will be of help to them.

Public Bodies (Appointments)

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria he has applied in making appointments to public bodies since he took office.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: When making an appointment to a public body I have regard to any statutory requirements and to the suitability of the person for the post. My object is then to obtain the services of the best available person for the post.

Mr. Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that some of the appointments he has made since he came to office have caused widespread concern in Scotland? I refer not merely to the appointment to the Highlands and Islands Development Board: I refer also to the appointment of the Chairman of the Countryside Commission. There is a feeling in Scotland—and it will do the Secretary of State no good to ignore it—that something like "jobs for the boys" is going on. Can the right hon. Gentleman say who recommended the recent appointment to the Highlands and Islands Development Board and what sort of advice he takes in making these appointments?

Mr. Campbell: The appointments should be judged by the results, and the appointments which I have made since coming to office have proved successful. As regards the Chairman of the Countryside Commission, this was the appoint-

ment of a lady and it was a very popular appointment. This, too, has been successful. We dealt in an earlier Question with the appointment to the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I expect hon. Members opposite either to eat their words in a year or two's time or wish to forget that they had ever uttered them.

Mr. David Steel: The Secretary of State will know that my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the Highlands and Islands Development Board area have, without reflecting concern on the personal qualities of the individuals concerned, expressed concern about both the appointments he has made. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman think of consulting Members of Parliament, among other people, before making appointments to public bodies?

Mr. Campbell: There is a limit to the amount of consultation one can make, which must be private on occasions like this. However, the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), in criticising this appointment, was reported in the Press as advocating a younger person. But at the same time he proposed for this appointment Mr. Shaw Grant, who is 10 years older than the man I have appointed. I am glad that he nevertheless approved of Mr. Shaw Grant because he was one of my appointments of 1½ years ago, all of which were criticised at the time but which have now been approved because they have been successful. Moreover, Mr. Shaw Grant—an admirable appointment of mine of 1½ years ago—is not available for this post because he is full-time Chairman of the Crofters Commission.

Mr. Ross: Since there is a certain amount of concern about this matter, would it not be a good idea if the Secretary of State were to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT all the changes he has made? He will be aware that the Highlands and Islands Development Board is rapidly becoming known as the Inverness Harbour of Refuge.

Mr. Campbell: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is not aware that on 28th June in answering a Question, I gave the appointments which I had made and the names of people who had not been reappointed. They are therefore already in HANSARD.

Borders District Hospital

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an assurance that in the new Borders district hospital, all departments at present in Peel Hospital will be included, and that the addition of tonsillectomy and maternity units will be considered.

Mr. Monro: The announcement of the inclusion of the new Borders District Hospital in the major building programme enables the South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board to put the planning of the project in hand and, when the appropriate stage of planning is reached, the points the hon. Gentleman makes will of course be taken into consideration.

Mr. Steel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is some concern in the area, not only that the specialties I have mentioned may not be included but that it is rumoured that the children's ward at Peel may not be included? If that were so, it would be a thoroughly retrograde step. Will the hon. Gentleman give the assurance for which I have asked in the Question?

Mr. Monro: All the options are open at this stage. The early stages of planning are being considered by the regional hospital board. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all the points which he and his colleagues in the Borders who have shown particular interest in this matter have raised will be considered most carefully.

Vacant Council Houses

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with local authorities with a substantial proportion of council houses standing vacant regarding possible action to remedy this situation.

Mr. Younger: Responsibility for remedying this situation rests with the local authority concerned, but my right hon. Friend is prepared to have discussions with any council which approaches him.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Where it can be shown that local authorities have substantial numbers of council houses standing vacant because they were built in the wrong place or were of a wrong type in

response to pressure from the Labour Party when it was in government, will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of arranging special financial assistance for the local authorities affected and preferably debit it to and recover it from Transport House?

Mr. Younger: That is certainly a very lucrative source of funds to be tapped, but I do not think I have any power to tap it. The local authorities involved are very concerned about the question of houses which are standing empty and I am willing to discuss with them the problems which it raises. However, I take into account the number of empty houses in an area when considering applications for new building.

Aliment (Attachment of Earnings)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a study of how the attachment of earnings order legislation is helping women who have been granted aliment by court order.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I expect that the Scottish Law Commission, in its current review of the law of diligence, will take account of any improvements in procedure effected by the Attachment of Earnings Act, 1971, which applies only to England and Wales.

Mr. Dalyell: If the legislation is satisfactory, why is it that the flow of these wretched women to all our "surgeries" continues unabated?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Because, as we repeatedly say to the hon. Gentleman, these matters are under deep study by the Scottish Law Commission and the Finer Committee. This is a problem which affects human beings and we must therefore get the answer right.

Steel Industry

Mr. John Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will cause the Scottish Development Department to make a study on the consequences for the Scottish economy changes in the pattern of employment in the British steel industry.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Scottish Economic Planning Board, on which the British Steel Corporation is represented, is reviewing all questions arising from the


prospective changes in the pattern of employment in the steel industry in Scotland.

Mr. Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that in a county like Lanarkshire, where we have 9 per cent. unemployment, the announcement of 7,500 redundancies throughout Scotland in the steel industry has caused mounting fear and despair for the future? Is it not time that the Government stopped restricting the expansion plans of the British Steel Corporation and allowed it to expand properly in Scotland and elsewhere?

Mr. Campbell: I do not accept that the Government are restricting in the way that the hon. Member mentions. We discussed this at length on Thursday in the debate. I would point out that in the hon. Member's area a factory is being extended to 120,000 sq. ft. with almost 700 employees affected, and also that Cummins Engines Ltd. has announced an increase in employment of about 180 workers. As I announced last week there is the new motorway which will greatly assist the hon. Member's constituency.

Mr. Edward Taylor: While these investments are greatly to be welcomed, would my right hon. Friend say whether, in the event of a decision not being taken on the proposed steelworks at Hunterston by the end of the year, it will be necessary for the Government to obtain the consent of the European Coal and Steel Industry before a decision is taken?

Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend knows that the option is open as regards the steelworks at Hunterston. I cannot answer the second supplementary question without notice.

Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it perfectly clear that the onus for finding work, as the work goes out and is phased in, rests to a very large extent upon the Government themselves and not just upon the British Steel Corporation? Will he endeavour, in the changes which are being brought about in the steel industry, to see that the Scottish steel industry retains a substantial measure of variety and does not become simply a two-product industry and nothing else?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Member could have heard me say in the debate

on Thursday that the corporation wished to give the unions notice of this; it thought it was right to give to Scotland and to the unions notice of what was to start happening in about two years' time No individual closures have been announced. These are matters which will be announced by the corporation with the usual notice but the Government, as I said last Thursday, are concerned about the question of alternative employment where redundancies occur.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Rost: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that despite your efforts to speed up Scottish Question Time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—we have not managed to reach Question No. 35 to the Lord President of the Council? Should not this be looked into in the interests of all hon. Members?

Mr. Speaker: I hope that that fact will be noted by those responsible in these matters.
I have a statement—

Mr. Ross: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would point out for the benefit of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) that we lost eight minutes of Question Time because of two petitions presented by English Members.

Mr. Speaker: That introduces the possibility of injury time.

CONFERENCE ON ELECTORAL LAW

Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make. In the course of debates on the Local Government Bill indications were given that I had agreed in principle to preside over a conference to consider various matters of electoral law. The Prime Minister has now formally invited me to preside over such a conference and I have agreed to do so.
The terms of reference of the conference will be as follows:
To examine, and, if possible, submit agreed resolutions on, the following matters relating to parliamentary elections—

1. The franchise, particularly in relation to British subjects normally resident in the


United Kingdom but temporarily living abroad.
2. Electoral registration, particularly—

(a) the registration timetable, and the frequency of publishing the register;
(b) multiple registration and the definition of "residence";
(c) registration of Servicemen.

3. Minimum age for election.
4. Election expenses, other than candidates' expenses.
5. Conduct of elections, particularly—

(a) candidates' descriptions;
(b) problems relating to committee rooms;
(c) absent voting;
(d) polling hours;
(e) marking of electoral numbers on ballot paper counterfoils.

6. The cost of election petitions.

I shall inform the House as soon as possible of the names of those who have accepted my invitation to serve as members of the conference, and also of the names of the secretaries. It will then be open to hon. Members, party organisations and other bodies concerned to submit representations to the conference on matters falling within the terms of reference. Such representations should be sent to the secretaries at the Committee Office, House of Commons.

HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS (UNIFORM LABELLING)

3.32 p.m.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the labelling of hazardous products used in the home or garden.
The Bill which I hope the House will give me leave to present has the support in principle of the Consumers Association, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Personal Safety Committee of the British Standards Institution, and the British Medical Association.
The Measure has become necessary because the range of potentially dangerous household and garden products has become so wide and sophisticated that it is no longer possible to leave warnings to individual manufacturers.
On the highways there are dangers, and the warning signals are clear. In the home there are dangers, too, and the warning signals should be just as clear for parents and children alike, because in nearly every kitchen cupboard today there is a small arsenal which, if mishandled, could lead to very serious and even fatal accidents.
Most sensible parents keep drugs and medicines out of their children's reach, but they are unaware that they need protection from everyday household products which can kill, disfigure, injure or maim them, and a startling number of tragedies can be traced to these products. An attractive, innocent-looking bottle of furniture polish put down for a moment while the mother answers the telephone could be lethal to her three-year-old child. Cleansers, polishers, furniture polish, stove polish, bleaches, oven cleansers, lavatory cleansers, paint solvents—nearly all of them carry substances of a poisonous or toxic nature. Many of them are sold in explosive, flammable containers. All of them, if accidentally mishandled or ingested, can lead to very serious dangers.
What I should like to emphasise to the House is that these are perfectly good products if used for the purposes for which they are sold, and it is against accidental mishandling, mostly by children, that we must guard.
The form of warning I advocate is simple and striking. It consists of four simple symbols pinpointing four common hazards, "poison", "flammable", "explosive", and "corrosive". The first three of these symbols approximate almost exactly to those used in the bulk transport of these substances and by the EEC. The fourth symbol would have to be modified slightly to harmonise with EEC and ISO regulations.
The most important thing about these symbols is that not only should they be clear and easily recognised. But that they should be uniform so that they can be taught to the pre-school child as is the highway code. The symbol itself should be of a regulation size in proportion to the package and should be carried on the main portion of the label or the container with the word "danger" and the name of the secondary hazard below. The manufacturer would be required to make a secondary warning statement elsewhere on the label giving details of the first-aid recommendations and antidote. In Canada, where similar legislation has been introduced, it is often suggested that the container should be taken with the patient to the hospital or the doctor.
The purpose of the primary symbol would be to alert the pre-school child who cannot read and also parents to the danger and to draw their attention to the secondary warning elsewhere on the label.
In a recent survey carried out by the Canadian Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs it was shown that 80 per cent. of the nursery school children interviewed already recognised the first three symbols.
Now I hold up for hon. Members to see a tin of drain cleanser commonly on sale in this country. This tin does not carry the word "Danger" anywhere, but a mere caution on the top and back of the tin. Elsewhere on the back of the tin, in minute print among a welter of other instructions are directions which bear witness to the deadliness of this product. For instance, it says, "When in use hold tin at arm's length"; "If more than recommended quantity used, violent reaction could result". It then thoughtfully goes on to say, "If you use spoon, make sure that you wash it carefully before reuse".
Presumably, if one used the spoon to eat cornflakes one would have no vocal chords left.
These instructions cannot be read by the pre-school child. This highly poisonous and corrosive substance is of a pleasant white sugary texture. One shudders to think what might happen if it fell into wrong hands.
I hold up for the House to see an enlarged photograph of the same tin bearing the clear, striking, warning symbol that I have proposed in the Bill so that parents and teachers alike are immediately alerted to the dangers. I also hold up a tin of furniture polish recently purchased in Canada bearing the Canadian mandatory, uniform symbols. The House may be interested to know that the symbols plus the word "danger" are as large as the brand name itself. Many thousands of furniture polishes on sale in this country bear no such warnings, and that is true also of thousands of household and garden products.
I hope it will be clear to the House from this demonstration that the Measure I am proposing is not only necessary but urgent.
In Canada, before similar regulations were introduced, 80 per cent. of all poisonings were among pre-school children; 16,000 of these could be traced to household products. In America, where similar figures are available, in 1966 the American Congress amended the Federal Hazardous Substances Labelling Act to extend the regulations, and in the EEC there is a directive of the Council, implementable by secondary legislation or departmental regulation, which in Article 6 makes it mandatory for dangerous substances to carry uniform warning symbols.
This country appears to be lagging behind. The Measure which I am seeking to introduce is at least 10 years too late. It is certainly too late for those who have already been killed, injured or disfigured during this period, a period in which household products have proliferated on the market at a very fast rate. It is also shamefully clear that some other countries give a higher priority than we do to protecting their consumers from the sort of dangers that I have described.
What then are the tell-tale figures for Britain? Such figures as I have elicited


are absolutely devastating. Between 1968 and 1970, the latest year for which collated figures are available, over 22,000 children were treated in hospitals in England and Wales for the toxic effect of chiefly non-medicinal substances, that is to say, mainly household or garden substances. Of those, 86 per cent. were below school age and presumably could not read. Of those who died during this period, 80 per cent. were below school age. Those figures relate only to children treated in hospital, so that the true figure could be much higher, and since 1970 the figures could easily have doubled.
Those shocking figures prove beyond shadow of doubt that it is very young children who are mainly affected; it is they with whom the Bill is chiefly concerned, and, therefore, the uniformity of the symbols is the essence of its effectiveness.
Details of enforcement measures and penalties for contravention are set out in the Bill. The regulations would apply to the advertisement or sale of any substances in this country, whether home produced or imported.
The need for Governments to protect the public from sickness, injury or death attributable to inadequate information or warning has never been more apparent than it is today. No regulations and no laws can overcome carelessness or lack of common sense, but knowledge provides some protection and, at the very least, people should be informed of the precautions they should take for their own safety and for the safety of their children.
I hope the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill and that the Government will make an effort to pass it as soon as possible, before they are eventually forced to do so by the relevant EEC directive and before too many more tragedies have occurred.

Mr. Faulds: You have forgotten your props, love!

Question put anti agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Sally Oppenheim, Mr. Edward Taylor, Mr. Luce, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. Montgomery, Dr. Stuttaford, Dr. Vaughan, Mr. Pardoe, Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mr. Greville Janney, Mr. Cormack.

HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS (UNIFORM LABELLING)

Bill to amend the law relating to the labelling of hazardous products used in the home or garden presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday next, and to be printed. [Bill 191.]

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS

Ordered,

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, having been signified]
That Sir Ronald Russell shall be appointed an additional Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means and shall be entitled to exercise all the powers vested in the Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means, including their powers as Deputy Speaker, until the rising of the House on Wednesday 9th August.—[Mr. Pym.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

ARMED FORCES (WIDOWS' PENSIONS)

3.46 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: I have the good fortune to be first on the list to speak in today's debates, and I hope that this will mean that those for whom I am pleading will have a better future. Appeals for widows and orphans of members of the Armed Forces have been before Parliament since 11th May, 1949. I will quote what Mr. A. V. Alexander said in answer to a Question on that occasion:
As hon. Members are aware, a review was initiated some time ago into the long established scheme of non-contributory pensions for the widows and orphans of regular members of the Armed Forces. While this review was in progress, His Majesty's Government decided to promote a family pension scheme … Agreement has been given in principle to the introduction of such a new and comprehensive scheme for the Forces, and details are being worked out as quickly as possible.
That, I may say, was more than 22 years ago.
Mr. Hare, as he then was—he is now in another place—asked:
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was as long ago as 12th May, 1948, that his hon. Friend the Civil Lord said that a review affecting the widows of officers in the Armed Forces was in an advanced stage?
A very old friend of ours, Commander Pursey, joined in and asked:
Is it not the case that hitherto there have been no pensions whatever for 'other ranks' and that it is of the utmost importance that for the first time in history of the Services, 'other ranks' are included in the scheme and pensions paid to widows?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 1850–2.]
Many of my constituents have written to me, and many have written to the Ministry of Defence. A reply has been received from a civil servant, which reads as follows:
I am afraid there is nothing I can usefully add to my letter of 19th June, and in the

circumstances I can see no value in any further correspondence.
I think that is an unfortunate attitude to take, and this, regrettably, has been the attitude of Ministers of both parties since 1950–22 years ago. It is frightening, especially if the husband had—and many even alive at the present time have—only 24s. 9d. a week. The 9d. was for a medal, and only 24s. a week otherwise. He obviously could not save any of that money or put any by for his wife. There are several servants of this House who are in this condition. When they die, their widows will receive absolutely nothing despite the magnificent service the men have given to the Armed Forces and to the House. By now also the widows will be fairly old, they cannot go out to work and are therefore unable to find any jobs to support themselves.
Of the other ranks, only the widow of a warrant officer, first class, receives a pension. In 1947 the pension for the widow of a warrant officer was £35 a year. In 1950 it was stated that the last revision of pensions before 1947 was in about 1920, so little interest was taken by successive Governments in the Armed Forces. The then Member for Petersfield, Sir George Jeffreys, proposed a Select Committee on this subject. He made a long speech which was supported by many hon. Members, and regrettably all of them have now passed away. In those days they made particular efforts to try to get some form of pensions for these widows.
On 3rd May, 1950, in a reply to Mr. Low, who was then a Member of this House, the Minister said that he had nothing to add. It is an interesting fact that following the sinking of HMS "Saumarez" and HMS "Volage" off Corfu, pensions were awarded to the widows and orphans of the officers and men who lost their lives. Those pensions were paid in accordance with the rates laid down in an Order in Council of 4th June, 1946. They were not considered to be pensions, but compensation. I believe that all Service widows should be compensated for the loss of their husbands.
In a letter dated 15th March, 1972, to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby), the Minister stated:
When all is said and done"—


and I must say that plenty has been said but nothing has been done—
the fact is that they are in the same position as any other widow whose husband left a particular employment before his conditions of service provided widows' pension. I am sorry to say that there is no prospect of giving retrospective entitlement to those widows.
Widows in this category whose husbands were not in the Armed Services were very much better treated. In many cases Royal Naval personnel got only a shilling a day. They had no opportunity whatever of saving on that amount and certainly it was not open to them to take out private insurance, even if they could afford to do so as their expectation of life was not very good, and the premiums would have been far too high for anybody serving in the Armed Forces. Furthermore, wives of Royal Naval personnel often had to cope with all home problems for up to three years while their husbands were at sea. The conditions of service were very different from the conditions today. Servicemen in those early days had to endure hardships, danger and living conditions which would not now be tolerated in prisons. There was separation from wives and families year after year, after which the men received miserably inadequate pensions with no terminal grants or gratuities; they also had a commitment to instant recall to active service for 20 years, if the need arose. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear this factor very much in mind. Many were called up for service in the Second World War.
Having listened to many of my constituents, I realise the hardship which they suffered. For example, there is a part of Devonport known as China Town because sailors returned from service with their pigtails, without any knowledge that pigtails were no longer a naval custom. It is extremely difficult for elderly widows many of whom live in close proximity to younger Service widows who in comparison draw large pensions with no strings attached.
In July, 1970, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the Government would make sure that the elderly would know they would get their rewards. Since the pledge to the over-80s has been fulfilled, why can we not now help the Service widows?
There are three classes of Service widows with two cut-off dates. There

were the pre-1950 widows with no pensions, the 1950–1972 widows with one-third pensions, and the post-1972 widows with half pensions. I admit that the same criterion would apply to other sectors of the public service, but the difference is that in all cases except the Armed Forces, these pensions are based on cash contributions paid by husbands.
In the case of the Armed Forces only, pensions are based on the service given by the husbands, many of whom were killed. If I may quote one example, a woman recently wrote to me and said that her husband was presumed killed in 1943. Had he lived another 2½ months he would have completed his six years' active service, but since he did not live for that length of time no gratuity was paid. That short period of 2½ months made the major difference that no pension was payable to his wife who survived him.
We must remember that there would not have been any public service pensioners had the men of the Armed Forces not won the First World War. The Armed Forces protected us in this country, and for that reason many of the public service pensioners were able to survive.
Lord Mountbatten stated at a Royal British Legion conference, which was commemorating 50 years of work:
It is painful to sit here and realise that we are behind every Commonwealth country in the treatment of war widows. Why is it that year after year Governments are so hardhearted about it?
Even German war widows receive better treatment. It seems to me fantastic that widows of men in the Armed Forces, who fortunately have never heard a shot fired and who were often accompanied when on active service by their wives and families. should receive so much better treatment than those who fought for the freedom which we enjoy today and who have had to endure poverty and the lack of a true married life.
In 1970 the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who was then in the Ministry of Defence, made a cruel statement. In January, 1970, he said that we could not make an estimate of how many Service pensioners would be affected were we to decide retrospectively to extend the provision. Certainly some pensioners had died, and the hon. Gentleman then said that there were about 30,000 widows in 1970, some


of whom would have been widowed when young and would have married again. This reminds us of what used to happen when a woman came before a judge after suffering injuries in an accident, when the judge had to assess whether the woman was attractive enough to get remarried. This process certainly applied to the widows for whom I am appealing. I am glad that at least in civil life this attitude is something of the past, but apparently this is not true of Service life. I hope that the Government will be more generous to these widows, who must be growing less in number every year.
The hon. Member for Sparkbrook then made the point that any
… hardship should at least be mitigated by supplementary benefits by rate rebates and other provisions".—[OFFiciAL, REPORT, 26th January, 1970; Vol 794, c. 972.]
But these are proud women, and rightly so since their husbands gave their lives to the country—why should they be subjected to a means test?
I am sure that my hon. Friend has every sympathy with these widows and I hope that his Department will see to it that they receive their justifiable rights. Why should they be treated as inferior to any other kind of widow? Since their husbands have given such excellent service to the nation, why should their wives be subjected to a means test and other humiliating inquiries? I make this strong plea for these women today and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give me a satisfactory answer.

4.0 p.m.

Dr. David Owen: This subject has occupied the attention of many Ministers of Defence and other Ministers in the three Service Departments. It was a severe disappointment to me during my stay in the Ministry that we were not able to make this change. Since there is a collective responsibility in these matters, I accept my share of it, but I made no secret of the fact, both in the Department or outside it, that I believed this to be an anomaly which needed to be changed.
When we debated this matter during the Navy Estimates debate I made my voice quite clear then, and the Under-Secretary very courteously decided to make an important statement in winding

up that debate, in that he would take the matter away and look at it.
This matter has been a running sore in the House, as the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) says, for decades. Many of us felt that on this occasion we would get a break through. There is a machinery inside the Ministry of Defence for a review of these matters which, if I remember rightly, occurs every four years. It seemed that we would live up to an agreement I got in the Department that this matter would be looked at again.
I have some sympathy with the Under-Secretary in that I suspect—although he will obviously not say this—that he has been unable to convince his colleagues. The only consolation I have is that, unless it was inevitable, I never allowed myself to be in the position of having to defend this decision—it was my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who defended the Government's decision at that time—with which I did not agree.
I now put to the Under-Secretary the reasons why I think that successive Governments' replies have been inadequate. When I first went into the Ministry in July, 1968, the review was at its all important final stage. It was clear then, despite my views, that it was very difficult to get a change. The view, however, that there is an enormous anomaly here has been expressed by many in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), when Navy Minister, championed the cause of these particular pensioners. Although it has tended to be argued in terms of people from naval constituencies, we are arguing something much wider which cuts across all three Services.
In the Navy Estimates debate I indicated why I felt that we had more pressure in naval constituencies. It is the geographical location of having a large number of widows who fall the wrong side of the demarcation line. They live in the same streets, go to the same old-age pensioners' clubs and some may be even related. In their daily life they are constantly brought up against the anomaly that just because there has been a demarcation line they are not eligible for pension while other people, with a


separation, perhaps, of only one month's service are eligible.
It is true that this demarcation has existed in our welfare system in many other cases. We have to draw the line somewhere. The Under-Secretary would be fair to invoke the fact that there is a serious problem in retrospection. It can be very expensive. It could also open the floodgates to retrospective demands from many other pensioners.
I should like to examine the arguments. It has been argued by the Minister—I take his arguments, because they are the most convenient, occurring on the occasion when we last debated this matter in detail, on 23rd July, 1970—that there are many other people in other categories, for instance, the National Health Service, the Civil Service and teachers. For the categories that have been quoted, it has been argued that if we were to operate retrospectively the abolition of the demarcation date in he case of Service widows' pensions, we should be under an obligation to open the same retrospection to the various categories I have mentioned. There is, however, a basic flaw in the arguments put forward by successive Governments. The facts are that we are already in an anomalous situation in that officers' and warrant officer I's widows are eligible for pension. This matter goes back for nearly a century. The decision to give them a pension preceded the 1952 Pension Act to which this is all related. But I plead with the Minister that, because of this anomaly of officers' and warrant officer I's wives having pensions, we are dealing with a unique situation in relation to Service pensioners as opposed to civil servants, teachers and others. This is the crucial thing.
The Ministry of Defence is faced with the problem of how it can possibly justify a different treatment for people all within one Service. It is against the whole ethic of the way the Ministry of Defence has tended to run its affairs over the last three or four decades under successive Governments—that, as far as possible, there should not be discrimination between officers and other ranks. I pay tribute to the fact that, in many cases, the people who have championed the cause of egalitarian treatment—not necessarily of benefit level but of principle—have been the senior officers in the Ser-

vice, who are deeply concerns about this sort of inequality. There has been a steady move to try to provide throughout the whole Service the same sort of treatment. That applies the whole way through, to freeing-up promotions and removing the class structure and, as far as possible, making service conditions the same for whatever rank someone has held. This applies in the whole idea of married quarters, and I could cite innumerable examples. This has led to the betterment of the Services and to a tremendous improvement in morale.
One is left with this outstanding anomaly under which we treat officers' and a small group of warrant officers' widows in a way different from that in which we treat the widows of other pensioners. We cannot continue to escape our responsibility. While we have allowed the situation that pertains to officers, how can we continue to defend this anomaly?
It is perfectly possible to explain to the general public that the Services should be treated differently in this matter. For many years the Services had a tradition that their pay and pension structure were different from those in civilian jobs. I do not want to make too much of it. People have recognised that Servicemen have undergone risks and hazards, and that the whole question of Service life is unique. In consequence, over the decades Parliament has legislated for the Services in a unique way. Therefore, one cannot any longer continue to justify this anomaly by invoking the likely effect on other pensioners in the Government service. We should look at this matter on its merits and recognise that a historic anomaly exists, and we should overcome it.
This is now beginning to cause more and more distress as more and more women are widowed. That is the reason why Parliament did not start arguing very fiercely about this in the 1950s. But it has increasingly felt it as a serious problem recently because it is now coming to Members as a constituency problem. It is no accident that hon. Members attending the debate represent dockyard constituencies, and the large naval ports. Hon. Members are finding it impossible to justify this anomaly. A recent editorial in the Plymouth Evening Herald on 21st July, 1972, was headed:
No mite for the widow.


The article states:
In terms of the Government's yearly budget, £1½ million—or even £3 million—is a paltry sum. Cash on this scale is just a drop in the ocean by comparison and sums like this are, in too many instances, apparently frittered away.
The article goes on to give strong arguments as to why the Government should give the widow her mite and says that the public should press the Government until they do so.
This is not a matter of party political division. All Governments must accept responsibility for this. We have not faced this. The Ministry of Defence as a whole has not faced the problem with anything like enough urgency.
I plead with the Minister to take this matter away and look at it again. There are times when the voice of this House will have to be heard. Governments have to give way, and there is no one, apart from ministerial spokesmen who are put up at the Dispatch Box to defend collective decisions of Government, who believes the case that the Government have had to defend. We are putting Ministers in a very embarrassing position. When we return to the greater freedom of Opposition or of the back benches then we have more freedom. More and more of us are speaking our minds, saying that this is an anomaly which is unjustified.
I do not think that the Minister will invoke cost as being the major problem. The major problem is the possibility of this flowing over into other pensions. For the reasons I have stated, this does not hold. This matter should be the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence and the money should come, if necessary, from the Ministry of Defence. No one can tell me that the Ministry of Defence in its budget cannot find ½1¼ million if it wishes. What is missing at present is the will. The serious problem is that pensions, for very obvious and important reasons, are dealt with as a tri-Service responsibility. Somehow a Minister has to say, "I understand why there are no problems from the Army and the Air Force but this is entirely due to a geographical problem." I realise the justice of the case. It is coming to me because of the feeling in the naval ports, for obvious reasons, but the anomaly is

the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence as a whole.
I urge the Under-Secretary to say the minimum possible today, except that he will look at the matter again. I believe that until a Government change their mind on this matter we shall go on having debates and the arguments put up by successive Governments will not be satisfactory to this House. That is why we are having this debate. We have consistently had such debates because the arguments which have been put forward by successive Governments have not been convincing.
I suggest that the Minister of State should take a broad view on this matter, should read the debate, should note the feelings which have been expressed on both sides for long enough, and should settle this anomaly once and for all. Then I believe that those who have campaigned in Portsmouth and in Plymouth and other towns—and individuals, for instance, Mr. Biddick in Plymouth—who have fought so long and valiantly will have won a fight which they are entitled to win.

4.11 p.m.

Captain Walter Elliot: I confess that I agree with most of what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) said, but I also confess that I should have liked him to say those things when he occupied the position which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary now occupies. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, perhaps freedom in Opposition makes it possible to voice these matters rather more clearly. I do not want to make too much of that or to introduce too discordant a note into what I am sure is an almost unanimous approach to this subject.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) on this matter. We all know that for many years my hon. Friend has given a lot of time and energy to finding out about all these problems. I am sure the Minister would be the first to admit that when my hon. Friend raises this subject it is the result of real injustices which she has discovered.
I should like to mention three points. The first underlines the point made by my hon. Friend about the circumstances of Service widows which are different from


the circumstances of other widows because of the conditions under which their husbands served. They may not necessarily have been in the front line in a war. Service in all parts of the world, in ships, in the Army, or in the Air Force, in conditions which tax the physical conditions of Service men, bring a fairly regular death rate, as I know from my experience, from matters quite apart from actual fighting. There are additional hazards for Service men.
Secondly, we know very well that all Governments are concerned with cost, and we appreciate that concern of the Treasury about this matter. No doubt it is reasonable for any Government to say they hope that not only the Treasury is concerned with the proper expenditure of money. Although we apparently cannot get the approximate figure of widows who would he considered, I think it is reasonable to assume that, as 1950 is 22 years ago, the number cannot be all that great and, as my hon. Friend said, must be decreasing. I do not believe that the number and, therefore, the expense can be all that great.
Thirdly, from the practical point of view, which I am sure my hon. Friend has very close to his heart, there is the effect on recruiting. There is no doubt that if the conditions of service include security not only for dependants but for the Service man after he has retired, that sort of thing is passed on to sons and relations in the family down through the generations. In the past that has led to successive generations of families in areas like the naval ports or the regimental depôts going into the Services. Everyone agrees it is most valuable for the Services. If a Service man feels that his widow will be looked after, it is of great help. In my opinion, Service men are very unselfish in these matters. Although today's Service men may have no direct contact with the pre-1950 widows, it is a matter of concern to them if these widows are not properly provided for. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind the effect on recruiting. It is difficult to measure, it may be intangible, but it is very important. More conditions in the Services must be brought into line with conditions outside so that recruiting will be maintained.
When I entered this House 10 or 12 years ago we were always being told

about the immutability of pensions. Of course, that has gone. We now have the biennial review. Outside the Services this Government, to their credit, have brought in pensions for the over-80s—those who made no contributions towards retirement pensions. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will not allow himself to be constrained by the regulations or the conditions, because, over the years and again recently, we have, to our credit and to the satisfaction of the country and the people concerned, overridden those. I hope that my hon. Friend will not allow anything like that to stand in the way of his helping these comparatively few people at comparatively low expense, but of great benefit for both them and the Services.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish to make an appeal to the House. There are 22 topics for debate. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) was lucky to have her name drawn out of the hat first I hope hon. Members will be somewhat unselfish, think of the other debates which are to follow, and be fairly brief. I think that an hour is about right for each topic, and this one began at quarter to four.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: I am sure the entire House is grateful to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) for taking this opportunity to raise this important subject. I should also like to pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) for having so candidly shared with the House what I know to have been his position consistently throughout the years when this subject has been brought to the attention of the Ministry of Defence.
I will not go into any detail, Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind not only your plea but the fact that in the past I have had several Adjournment debates on this subject and have raised it in the Defence Estimates debate.
I must emphasise to the Under-Secretary—knowing his general temperament and outlook I am sure he will appreciate this point—that there is a general atmosphere of profound disappointment amongst those affected, because they were hopeful at one remark


which he made earlier this year about the review which was taking place within the Ministry on this subject, only to find these hopes dashed by a definite and negative reply subsequently. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton has already suggested, I suspect that the Under-Secretary of State is on our side. I wish not that one of his senior colleagues within the Defence Department were on the Front Bench but that a Treasury spokesman were there, because that is where I suspect the blame really lies.
First, I take up a matter which was stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton. We have heard a good deal about anomalies, and I am sure that all those who know about this subject agree that these anomalies exist. It is extraordinary that successive Governments have insisted on making comparisons outside the Service rather than within the Service. When we see the widows of commissioned ranks enjoying pension rights and the widows of non-commissioned ranks not enjoying those rights, that is a greater anomaly than if we were to take action on this but not to take comparable action in a whole range of other walks of life not involved in the Services.
I emphasise that it should always be remembered that this is essentially a non-contributory pension scheme. The pension is a reward for service of the individual concerned. Therefore, it is not relevant to suggest that the premiums paid, as might happen in other pension schemes, do not warrant an increase of this kind.
A point of elementary social justice which has to be stressed repeatedly is that these widows saw their husbands serving in a period of general hardship and difficulty which has not been rivalled since. They went through hardships and difficulties which have not, thank God, been the lot of the wives of Service men in subsequent years. That compounds the difficulties and injustices from which they suffer. Whether it is justified or not, the comment most frequently made to me is that there is a cynical attitude on the part of all Governments which suggests that if we wait long enough the problem will solve itself as the widows will die off and Governments will not be embarrassed any longer. It is a hard

judgment but one which is being made. I am sure that that view is not held by the Under-Secretary of State.
Some 30,000 widows are involved in this problem. The cost of granting an increase in the pension of between £1 and £2 would be a mere £1½ million to £3 million a year, which is peanuts in terms of overall Government expenditure. I received a letter recently from someone who has been campaigning long and hard on this issue and which spells out in human terms—even if it is a slight over-simplification—how this injustice is seen by those who have to suffer under it. The correspondent writes:
On 20th June I received a letter from the Ministry of Defence outlining the reasons for again rejecting the representations made in Parliament on the 10th April on behalf of the widows of Service men deprived of a share of their husband's pension.
Having done this, Parliament decided that the pension of the Prime Minister is to be almost doubled to £7,500. The qualifying period is one day and he does not contribute a one pence piece towards it. On 23rd June the Prime Minister announced rises of £48 a week for the highest paid chairmen of State industries backdated to 1st January. Judges, top civil servants and senior services officers get more than £33 a week increase.
Here you have the two extremes, those who have been struggling since 1952 for justice and on the other side of the coin the affluent, satisfied 'at a stroke'.
I decided all this is sufficient justification for me to get back into the fight.
I add my voice to those who have already spoken. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will never stop reexamining this issue. I hope that he will look at it repeatedly until the decision is revised, and that we shall get legitimate and long-deserved justice for this small section of the community.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) for raising the matter. I know that my hon. Friend has been pursuing successive Governments on this matter since 1955. I have been doing so even longer, since the anomaly was created in 1950. I hope that we have come to the end of the pursuit and that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will say, "Enough. I am prepared to do something about these people."
I know the problems which the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David


Owen) had when he was Under-Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman emphasised the Under-Secretary of State's responsibility and indicated that much more driving force must be used if the Government are to give way. He was unable to do that when his own Government were in office, but I am convinced that my hon. Friend will do everything that he possibly can.
I, the House and the country would like to know how many of these widows there are. In common with every hon. Member who has spoken, my constituency has a considerable number of widows in this category, both Navy and Army widows, the Army also having played a long part in the military traditions of my constituency. Why should the widows of men who died before 1950 suffer while those whose husbands died after 1950 get a pension? It is an extraordinary thing to try to explain—indeed, it cannot be explained.
I remind my hon. Friend that these widows not only lost their husbands but, in a great many cases, because their husbands were Service men, were denied their company, presence and companionship for long periods during their married lives. Consequently, they had to bring up their families without the help of their husbands. These are a deserving group of women and I hope that my hon. Friend will look again at the matter.
Not only the Government but the whole country should understand that we are asking that pensions should be given to the wives of men who, in most instances, gave their lives for this country so that we could remain a democracy. Otherwise we should not be able in this House to speak for their widows. Surely that is a matter which the Government must consider. It is argued that these women can now draw social security. However, if they are to do so they have to subject themselves to a means test. Every hon. Member who has any close association with a constituency in which Service traditions are strong, and in which there are a number of these women, will know that they have an extraordinary pride. They are not women who will regularly ask for help from national assistance.
I plead with the Government to agree, even if my hon. Friend has to disappoint us today from his brief by saying that nothing can be done, that the whole

matter will be reconsidered. I hope that my hon. Friend will take the feeling of the House to his Department. A Government, if they are to be a good Government, must be compassionate. The present Government have shown compassion for the over-80s, but a Service man's widow is not provided with a pension if her husband was killed before 1950. When she reaches 80 years of age she will get a small pension, but nothing in the meantime. A Government, if it is to be a good Government, must be compassionate.
But compassion alone is not enough. Justice also is required. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell the House today that the Government will not only be compassionate towards these widows but will also give them the justice that has been denied them for so many years.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Ernle Money: I should like to echo, briefly but no less warmly, the eloquent plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). Like other hon. Members, I have a constituency interest in this matter. The major shore establishment of HMS "Ganges" lies just outside my constituency and, as it was very often the last posting in a pre-war Royal Navy career, many widows of those who served live in Ipswich.
I should like to make four points. First, as has been rightly said, this is a geographical matter, but it is also a matter, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), which involves the least demanding and the proudest of people.
Secondly, I believe that these people have done a great deal to earn the pension which is now being asked for them. The services that they gave, in many instances looking after husbands and bringing up children in the most difficult conditions, and indeed bringing up families after the deaths of their husbands, have given them every right to looks for some justice from the State.
Thirdly, these people feel a total sense of puzzlement at the anomaly. It is not a question of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary saying that the amount of money involved is so much; as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham


said, the money is available in other forms, possibly in the form of social service benefits. This is a question of giving them the money with dignity.
Fourthly, I hope that the argument which has so often been put forward—one suspects that it is an argument which is advanced very often by civil servants in the Treasury or the Ministry of Defence—

Mr. Burden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he not agree that if the Government can find so many millions of pounds to help Upper Clyde shipbuilders, some few millions could be found to help these unfortunate women?

Mr. Money: I feel that this is indeed a case, above all others, where these people are entitled to what is being asked for them.
I hope that we shall not get the age-old arguments which come essentially from civil servants in the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence, that to accede to this plea would be creating a precedent or that these pensions were not sought and there was no entitlement to them at the time these Servicemen joined and that, therefore, there is no right to them. These are the meanest and shoddiest of arguments and I am sure that they would give no pleasure to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary if he had to advance them. I am sure that he will give a better answer today.

4.33 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Peter Kirk): I have never doubted that the cause which my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) so eloquently put forward this afternoon was one which commanded general support on both sides of the House. This has been made abundantly plain today. This is, of course, generally true in personnel matters that affect my Department. Indeed, it is one of the advantages of the job that hon. Members, whatever they think about the Services, are all properly concerned about conditions of service because Servicemen are, after all, our employees, and this extends to their families and includes eventually their widows and dependants.
Over the years those of us like the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) and myself who have had the privilege of serving in the Ministry of Defence have been able to bring about significant improvements in conditions of service, and that includes particularly service pay and pensions. It is natural that these improvements reveal or highlight anomalies that existed before, and naturally there is pressure that these anomalies in turn should be put right.
I want to start with a point which I hope will command some acceptance in the House, and that is that if our programme of improvements, particularly in pensions, is to have maximum effect, it has to be selective. The record of the present Government in pensions indicates that we have taken our pension strategy very seriously, and I use the word "strategy" advisedly. A very considerable stride forward has been achieved.
May I recall one or two things that have been done in the past few years as respects pensions? First of all, there were the remarkable changes in the 1972 Pensions Code. Pensioners on previous codes have benefited greatly from last year's pensions increase measures. Not only do all Armed Forces and public service pensioners now have a copper-bottomed guarantee that pensions will be increased by annual review—not a biennial review, as was suggested—to ensure that their purchasing power is fully maintained, but these increases will be payable from next December from the age of 55 instead of 60 as at present. This is clearly of particular benefit to the Armed Forces, and we estimate that about 40,000 Service pensioners will benefit from it. These increases, therefore, constitute a major advance for all those who have already retired to pension, and for those yet to retire the new Code has very substantial improvements particularly for Service men who are discharged to pension in their early 40's.
The reason why I put forward this record is that in the context of this record of achievement the Government's action in not accepting what hon. Members have recommended today can be far more readily understood. The plain fact is that in order to achieve the most important and most beneficial improvement we have had to be selective and, therefore, by definition have not been able to


accept all the proposals for improvement that have been made.
Nevertheless, as I promised in the Navy debate and as my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport and most other hon. Members are aware, I have reconsidered the position of the pre-1950 widows following representations made in the Navy debate earlier this year. I have had to look at this in the context of our continuing examination of improvements to pensions generally, and I regret to say that I have not been able to accept their views. I should say that in carrying out this review in response to points made in the Navy debate the main argument which it has been difficult to overcome relates to the question of introducing general improvements to pensions without limit.
Given that we do not have limitless resources for the constant up-dating of all pensions to a common set of rates as improvements are introduced, I am certain that we have been right to concentrate on the inflation-proofing of pensions increase arrangements. This has been a tremendous step forward which I am sure has been an immense source of security to pensioners in all branches of the public service.
The cause which my hon. Friend has put forward this afternoon has always been high on the list of those who seek extensions to our pension arrangements, and this is understandable. Many hon. Members have supported it, and I think it is fair to say that every Minister who has come to look at the problem afresh has naturally been disposed to look at it with a good deal of sympathy. I know that this is true of the hon. Members for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), for Plymouth, Sutton, and for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and I hope the House will believe it is true of myself as well. As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton mentioned in the Navy debate in April, during his time in office it was agreed that this question should be looked at during the next review of pensions.
Almost my first job at the Dispatch Box after the General Election in 1970 was to answer an Adjournment debate on this subject started by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) and since then there has been a steady stream

of letters not only from hon. Members but also from pensioners and pension societies. I would not normally single out any correspondent, but as the hon. Member for Sutton mentioned him I must say that I think Mr. Biddick, who has, I believe, written something over 200 well-reasoned letters to the Ministry of Defence on this subject, deserves a particular citation.
After all this activity, it is not to be expected that there will be many new arguments on either side, and so I apologise in advance if what I say sounds rather repetitive. I shall try to avoid repeating all that I have said before, but I must point out that the fact that arguments are familiar does not mean either that they are unsound or that they have not been looked at hard on many occasions to make sure that they justify repetition.
One point, about which, I think, there has been a certain mild confusion, should be made clear from the start. Just what sort of pension are we talking about? We are not dealing with widows whose husbands died as a result of service. Two of the instances cited by my hon. Friends were in that category. Those pensions are known as "attributable" or "war widows" pensions and are paid regardless of how long their husbands served. In parenthesis, I should add that they are a matter not within my responsibility but within that of the Department of Health and Social Security.
We are dealing here with the widows of Service men below the rank of warrant officer Class I who were not entitled to a pension until the Forces Family Pension Scheme was introduced in 1952. That scheme, like so many other pension schemes, laid down a qualifying date. It applied only to those widows—not whose husbands died before 1950, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) said, but whose husbands gave service on or after 1st September, 1950. If a man were discharged before 1st September, 1950, his widow is not eligible for an occupational Service pension regardless of his length of service and of the date on which she was widowed. On the other hand, any Service man who gave service on or after that date could gain entitlement to pension for his widow provided that he


completed the minimum periods of reckonable service.
I shall not say more now about why that date was chosen, because I have gone into detail about it before. The important point is that there was such a date. I think that it will probably be more helpful if I move on now to deal with the question why we should stick to that date, and then do my best to answer the arguments which have been advanced to justify breaching it.
The scheme introduced in 1952 was entirely new, but it was one of a number of new or improved occupational schemes which made provision for widows for the first time. There was also the Civil Service scheme, introduced in 1949, and those for local government and the National Health Service which came soon afterwards. They were all part of the general extension and improvement of pension schemes after the war which has played an important part in raising the general standard of provision for elderly people.
These occupational schemes represented a general improvement, and each one had a qualifying date appropriate to the individual circumstances of the particular scheme, because it was argued at that time that the extra cost of general retrospection would have greatly reduced the amount of improvement which could have been afforded—the same argument I was putting earlier about selectivity being one of the principles which has been applied.
Indeed, it is axiomatic that a real improvement involves limitation of entitlement. Every pension scheme sets rules to limit its scope. It is all very well to say nowadays that our predecessors in the early 1950s should have done things differently. Perhaps they should. What matters is that we have to take account today of the scheme as established by them.
It follows that the main reason why extension of entitlement to these widows has been consistently rejected is that we should not alter one of the chief features of one particular occupational pension scheme long after the event when there are a number of similar schemes with similarly restricted entitlement. In particular, successive generations of Ministers

have agreed that it would not be right to alter the forces scheme and to leave the Civil Service scheme unaltered in this respect.
There are obvious difficulties about making an estimate of the numbers involved. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham specifically asked me, I can only say that, although we do not have any administrative contact with the widows concerned, we reckon—or we reckoned in 1970—that the total was about 30,000, and almost certainly the numbers are still increasing, because Service men are discharged to pension much earlier than others are. On the other hand, the Civil Service widows probably now total as many as 50,000, but their numbers are almost certainly coming down because the age of retirement is later in that case. There are then the two schemes for local government widows and National Health Service widows, but for the sake of argument the Civil Service provides the most obvious comparison with the forces scheme.
The argument goes much wider than widows' benefits particularly at a time like the present when all public service pensions are under review, and even our own parliamentary scheme has just been reviewed. Whether we are dealing with wholly new schemes or improvements to existing schemes, broadly speaking a line has normally to be drawn to restrict benefit approximately to those serving at the time of the relevant change. If we were to pick out one feature of one scheme for application to those already retired, however deserving the particular cause might be, I do not see how my right hon. Friends and I could fairly resist pressures from other groups interested in the retrospective application of other features in other schemes. I assure the House that such pressures would be there in plenty, and large sums of public money are at stake.
I need not remind the House, for example, about, the pressure in the past to allow unestablished service in the Civil Service before 14th July, 1949, to reckon in full for pension instead of half. More recently, and perhaps nearer home, one of the most difficult points in the discussion of our own parliamentary pension scheme was the wish of many hon. Members to do something now for those who


left the House before the scheme started in 1964 and who are now excluded by the 1965 Act.
That, in general, is the point I am making. The stumbling block in the examination of this question which has arisen over and over again while I was undertaking it, as I promised to do, was the question of comparability. Whatever hon. Members may say in debate, there is not the slightest doubt that, if we alter this particular aspect of this scheme, we shall open the door to applications in respect of a large number of other schemes.
I come to some minor points on matters raised in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport referred to the concession made in respect of the over-80s. This is not strictly comparable. The undertaking to pay pensions to the over-80s was given in the context of a general improvement across the board in respect of an obviously deserving category of widows whose husbands retired, in the main, long before the introduction of occupational schemes making provisions for widows. That is a very different proposition from making a particular exception for a single part of the public service.
The hon. Member for Sutton referred to the difference of treatment between widows of officers and widows of other ranks. Again, we face the plain fact that the entitlement of various groups of widows to pension derives from a number of different schemes. The widows of officers and warrant officers Class I—it is a curious anomaly that it covers warrant officers Class I thought not other warrant officers—have had entitlement to pension, as the hon. Gentleman said, for well over a century. The widows of other ranks were not entitled until the introduction of the present scheme, with its qualifying date of 1st September, 1950. Hon. Members will be aware that for local government and the National Health Service there were slightly different dates of introduction. But none of these schemes gave a pension to the widow of anyone who left the Service before a qualifying date. Therefore, the widows of whom we are speaking are by no means an isolated group.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) argued that the amount of money in-

volved was trivial, and the hon. Member for Sutton went so far as to say that, in his day, finding £1¼ million or £2 million from the defence budget was no trouble at all. I can only say that Treasury control under a Socialist Government is clearly much more lax than under a Conservative Government. We should have great difficulty in finding this money from the defence budget.
I do not agree that it would necessarily be a minor concession, however, because it would have important implications for the rest of the public service. As I said, we estimate that in 1970 there were about 30,000 widows involved, and we estimated the cost then at about £3 million. We believe that the number of widows has increased, and the best shot we can now make at a figure is £4 million. There is probably a comparable number of widows of former civil servants in the same situation today, apart from the other categories involved. Clearly, therefore, very sizeable sums of money are involved.
The hon. Member for Sutton asked about the next stage of the review. As I said, we have already made considerable improvements in rates of pension. For other ranks, they are just about double in many cases, and the terminal grants have been improved accordingly. We are now considering various other improvements in the second stage of the review, but it is not likely that we shall be able to say much about them for some time.
I think I should repeat the point that I made earlier. The extent to which one can make real improvements in any pension scheme depends on setting limits to entitlement. Extending entitlement limits the scope of improvement, and therefore when we consider the pensionless widows during the review we have to take account of the effect of any concessions on other categories of Service widow. It would not be fair to leave the impression that a pension review is a sort of magic wand which can be relied upon to improve and extend benefits for everyone.
Finally, I refer to two points made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West. He said that we always compared this with anomalies outside the Service. That is not strictly true. Anomalies exist inside the Service, arising in the same way from the question of a starting date. We


are already receiving complaints that men discharged to pension on 31st March of this year will have sizeably less of a pension than men discharged to pension on 1st April, because it was on 1st April that the rate of other rank pensions practically doubled. This is a precisely similar anomaly arising from the question of a qualifying date. The only alternative is an absolutely open-ended commitment to retrospection right across the board, which would involve the Government in very substantial sums.
There is also the question of the difference between non-contributory and contributory pension schemes. I do not think that this affects the main point which I have been making, which is the question of the date. Every pension scheme has to start with a set of rules, and in a contributory scheme the contributions can be altered as time goes by. One can play about with it. In the Civil Service scheme widows and childrens' pensions are contributory, and subsequent improvements in the scheme have had to be bought by additional contributions in respect of previous as well as future service. One could argue endlessly about whether Civil Service widows are more or less deserving than Forces' widows, but I do not think that that has a bearing on the question of the extension of entitlement and the question of the qualifying date.
I know that again I have disappointed the House on this problem—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I assure my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite that I have looked at this again with great care and sympathy, but I am afraid that, like my predecessors, I have, with regret, come down against it on what I believe are good grounds of principle, and I am sorry to say that nothing that has been said today has convinced me that this decision, which is an extremely painful one, has been wrong.

CORSBIE HALL SCHOOL

4.52 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I wish to raise a quite different matter and, I think, a much greater scandal than we have heard about during the last hour.
So far I have initiated two or three debates in the House on Corsbie Hall School, in Fife, a private fee-paying school, for handicapped children, and I said in the House and privately to the Minister that I did not wish to make any party political capital out of it. At the end of the last debate the Minister responded in similar terms, but the time has now come to blow the lid off what I think is one of the most squalid and disgraceful stories of incompetence, indifference and callousness on the part of the Scottish Education Department, the Minister responsible and the local education authorities who sent or allowed their children to be sent to this wretched institution.
The last debate which I initiated on this subject took place on 4th May of this year, and I then outlined what I can only describe as this Dickensian scandal. I pointed out that the fees at this school were higher than those at Fettes College in Edinburgh—which was attended by Mr. Speaker—a top, snobby public school. The fee is £800 a year, at a school which had been a dilapidated, abandoned pre-National Health Service fever isolation hospital for which Fife County Council and the South-East Regional Hospital Board in Scotland could find no use. It was bought by a private enterpriser who, although he had no academic qualifications whatsoever, decided to provide facilities for handicapped children—not necessarily mentally handicapped; they could be socially handicapped—with IQs varying from 60 to 100. The fee is £800 a year, or £1,200 if a child stays at school during the holidays.
I pointed out that the fees were paid not by the parents of the children but by local education authorities from the North-West of England—Oldham, Manchester and Bury—right up to those in the Shetlands. Dundee sent 15 boys there and the Minister quoted the Deputy Director of Education for Dundee as saying that he had seen worse places than Corsbie Hall. My God, I wonder where he had been to see worse places!
These children, shut off from the public gaze at a cost of £800 a head per year, are in the hands of a principal who admitted that he had no professional academic qualifications, who is employing staff who are not properly qualified, and who issued to all education authorities in England and Scotland a brochure which was fraudulent and which was never fulfilled. It talked about fully-qualified psychiatrists, and so on, but the school never had that kind of staff.
In my speech on 4th May I tried as best I could to keep the temperature down. As I say, I saw the Minister privately before the debate and made it clear that I did not want to make any party political capital out of it, but the Minister's reply to that debate reeked of complacency and indifference. He spelled out, quite properly, the statutory position. Any person can set up an institution of this kind in Scotland with more than five children, and almost automatically it can be provisionally registered by the Scottish Education Department. The Minister said on that occasion:
This is solely a check on the proprietor.
What kind of a check was made on Mr. Taylor-Bryant? I do not believe that his name is Taylor-Bryant. Did the Minister find that out? In this class-ridden, rotten society in which we live, a hyphenated name has some social status and therefore he has a hyphen in his name. I do not believe that it is Taylor-Bryant. I do not know whether the inspectors found out whether that is his name. Having said that what was done was solely a check on the proprietor, the Minister went on to say that it
gives no indication that the premises or the instruction is adequate in the eyes of the Scottish Education Department. … Final registration is a different matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1972; Vol. 836, c. 767.]
Of course it is. Her Majesty's Inspectors must be satisfied before it is finally registered as to the adequacy of the premises, the instruction and the staff.
The Minister said that I had said in my speech that my second visit to the school gave indications that physical improvements had been made to the school. It had been established in September, 1970, and in early 1972 there were those physical improvements. There had been a splash of paint here and there, and the dormitories for the residential kids were

probably better than the homes they came from. Certainly, there were improvements in that direction, and I said so. So there should be. The £800 a year paid for each of more than 50 boys—more than the statutory limits imposed by the 1962 Act—was bringing in an income of more than £40,000 a year to the proprietor. He has said in the past week or two that one of his great mistakes was that the fees were not high enough. I shall come to that in a minute of two.
However, Corsbie Hall was provisionally registered in 1970, catering for boys with IQs of 60 to 100. Many of them were sent by the social work departments of local authorities. They were not all educationally sub-normal. Some came from broken homes. I have met them and talked to them. Some of them were intelligent boys who just happened to be unfortunate in their family background.
The Minister pointed out that nine subsequent visits were paid to the school, seven by the inspectors and doctors of the Scottish Education Department and two by the catering advisers. Two of the visits of the inspectors lasted three days. They were made by great mandarins in the Department, the great specialists who would not send a child of theirs to the school. It is good enough for the children of inarticulate parents in Oldham, Bury, Manchester or the Shetlands, but not for them. No Minister of any Government would have sent his child to this kind of school. The Minister said that the visits were made by highly-qualified inspectors. He described them as having
exceptional experience in special education and qualifications in psychology".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1972; Vol. 836, c. 738.]
There were visits by the district inspector in Fife, who also had great experience.
After a sixth inspection in November, 1971, it was decided that the school would soon be fit for full registration. Full registration was approved by the Minister on 24th April, 1972, less than four months ago. The school was declared hunkydory, perfect, wonderful. It was said that there was nothing wrong with it, that anyone could send his child there. The Minister said that on 24th April there were six teachers, including a fully qualified, very good head. He was. I was impressed by Mr. Jack. The others consisted of two fully qualified teachers, one university


graduate, one teacher trained at Jordanhill College in occupational centre work, and one unqualified teacher ready for teacher training. There were three instrutors—two fully qualified in technical subjects and the third involved in Outward Bound, sports and games activities. On 4th May, less than a fortnight later, the staff of nine had been reduced to seven. I wonder why.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): The hon. Gentleman had a lot to do with it.

Mr. Hamilton: I am glad the Minister said that. I want to put it on the record. I did have a lot to do with it. I am not happy that I did, but I felt it my duty. The Minister has failed in his duty to see that it did not happen. The Department is responsible for crass inefficiency, crass callousness and crass incompetence.
According to the Minister, everything was marvellous at that time. He made the point that it was not the duty of the Education Department to look into the financial structure of this type of school, because it is not laid down in the 1962 Act. Well, it damn well should be laid down in amendments to that Act, because the institution was crooked financially.
The Minister said in the debate to which I have referred that the debt was exaggerated. Where did he get that information from—from Mr. Taylor-Bryant? If he did not have access to the accounts, how did he know that the figures quoted of the debts the school had incurred were exaggerated? Mr. Taylor-Bryant himself said a week or two ago that they were understated, that he owes more than had been said in the Press. The Minister said that there was no immediate problem over heating, the telephone or insurance. At the very time he was saying that, the national insurance cards of the teachers had for months and months not even been stamped. Not a single card of any teacher in the school had been stamped for insurance purposes.
I have this very day received an answer to a Question I put to the Lord Advocate, asking what criminal proceedings are being taken against Mr. Taylor-Bryant because of his criminal activities. The Lord Advocate said:

No case against the former principal has been reported to the Procurator Fiscal. If such is reported the question of proceedings will be considered on the merits of the case.
There is no argument that the insurance cards have not been stamped. I telephoned the social insurance office in Kirkcaldy a few weeks ago and was told that if the teachers went to their employment exchanges and said that their cards were not stamped they would not be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit if they said that they had been at Corsbie Hall School, because they were innocent victims of crooked activities.
The same might apply to income tax. Some of the teachers have told me that, although when they received their monthly cheques income tax was deducted, it might well be that, although they had no firm evidence, Mr. Taylor-Bryant was not paying the deducted tax to the Inland Revenue.
In the debate in May the Minister also said:
I ask the hon. Gentleman"—
he was referring to me—
to give the school a chance and to cease attacking it week by week … if we give the school a chance to settle down, it may well provide a very much happier home for 55 children than they would otherwise have.
I reject the hon. Gentleman's demand for an inquiry. If the situation were as bad as he alleges or even approaching the conditions he has described tonight and as he described it in his speech on his Ten Minute Rule Bill, I should invoke the closure procedure. We will watch the situation carefully. I am sure that we shall see it develop to the advantage of these handicapped children. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that I have taken immense trouble, as I must, and as I intend to do in the future, to look into the case as he put forward. I must tell him that he has over-stated the difficulties that face the school at the moment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1972; Vol. 836, c. 770.]
That was 4th May, less than three months ago. Someone said a while ago that a week is a long time in politics; four months is a hell of a long time.
Within a few weeks of registration of Corsbie Hall, Mr. Jack, the highly-qualified, dedicated head, had quit, and he had quit he told me, because he was not satisfied with the way the school was being run. He was not satisfied with the finances of it, and Mr. Taylor-Bryant the principal, told him to mind his own business, that it was nothing to do with


him. The summer holidays came. Mr. Taylor-Bryant had sold the mini-buses of the school. A boat that it had bought for the boys on hire purchase from a firm in Wandsworth, London, had disappeared. The payments had not been kept up.
Mr. Johnson, a teacher who had left a few months before, had bought a model railway for the boys for £100 at his own expense. When he left, last April I think, Mr. Taylor-Bryant said "You will not be allowed to take your train with you", and he kept it in his own room and Mr. Johnson never saw it. Mr. Johnson came to me in the House a few weeks ago and said "Please try to get my train for me." But the sheriff had moved in. The sheriff had taken over the whole lot and was about to put it all into the auction rooms in Kirkcaldy because Mr. Taylor-Bryant had disappeared and sent all the kids away on their summer holidays. No one knew where Mr. Taylor-Bryant was.
The rumour was that he was on a caravanning holiday with his wife and children. He said later that he was down in London to try to raise some cash. He went to the surgery of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) because someone had told him that my hon. Friend was interest in education. I asked my hon. Friend what Mr. Taylor-Bryant had said. My hon. Friend said that Mr. Taylor-Bryant said "That man from West Fife is a bloody nuisance. He is not leaving me alone to get on with my school, and I am in difficulties. What can you do to help me?" My hon. Friend said that he could not do anything about it, that It was entirely up to the hon. Member concerned to deal with it as he liked, and that is what I am doing.
Come 19th July the police were there, the sheriff officers were there, the Inspector from the Department was there but no children turned up. Two teachers turned up because their school pay cheques had bounced. The teachers' cheques were bouncing like tennis balls at Wimbledon. Not one of them was honoured. Some were for £60 or £70.
In July I went to the school. My God! The gates were closed. I went through a little door. The place was deserted. I went straight through the kitchen, left in a hurry, and a little scruffy man came

through. I said "Who are you?" He said "I am the chef." "Chef of what?" He said "I am here to feed the hens." He said "Taylor-Bryant gave me £4 to keep the hens and two pigs alive. But if you want to talk to someone, there is a house mother upstairs." I said "What are you doing for pay?" He said "I am not getting any but there is a roof over my head and I have nowhere else to go." That was Mr. Foreman.
I went upstairs to the house mother, a 24-year-old woman separated from her husband, with domestic problems. There was a six-month-old child gurgling in a little basket. I said to the girl "How did you get here? What qualifications have you?" She said "I am not saying a word. Who are these fellows?" A Press man was with me because he had telephoned to tell me about Mr. Taylor-Bryant and asked me to go along to the school with him that afternoon, along with my agent. I took very good care to take witnesses to this place.
The reporter and my agent were with me. We talked to this girl. I said to her "I am the local Member; I want the full story." She said "I got the job. I saw an advertisement in the paper. I have an Australian qualification in nursing. It was a roof over my head. I have my child with me and I was outside the English law and my husband was not in England." I asked her "What are you doing for heating and lighting?" The electricity was cut off, the telephone was cut off. He did not pay any ruddy bills. There was no heating. She said "I have a calor gas stove, and when that is finished I am finished."
I got on to Glenrothes Development Corporation, because it has empty houses just along the road, and within a week that girl was in one of those houses in Glenrothes. She was helped very well, and I pay my respects to the social security people, to the development corporation and the police. The police went along. I telephoned them at Kirkcaldy and told them about this girl. They made sure that the little child was properly cared for. A day or two after, this chef had to kill one of the chickens to keep himself alive. There was nothing else to eat, so he knocked off one of the chickens.
Mr. Taylor-Bryant turned up on the 19th while all this activity was going on there. The police, the sheriff officers and


the inspector were all there, and Mr. Taylor-Bryant said "I am bankrupt, and it's all because of that fellow Hamilton. If I had been left on my own I could have run this racket completely undisturbed." I quote from the Scottish Daily Record of 19th July:
The principal of Corsbie Hall School went to a lawyer to declare himself bankrupt yesterday.
But later, George Taylor-Bryant said: 'I discovered the creditors had beaten me to it. I had already been declared bankrupt.'
Mr. Taylor-Bryant, 32, returned yesterday to Thornton. Fife, where he set up the 880-year"—
I think that must be £800—
school for maladjusted boys two years ago.
He said: 'I have been in London trying to raise funds.'
Woodwork teacher James Walker and junior schoolmistress Margaret Herbertson were waiting at the school to tell Mr. Taylor-Bryant their June pay cheques bounced.
He said later: 'Now I am bankrupt I'm not allowed to pay the staff. But I understand they will be treated as preferential creditors and will get the salary due to them in full.'
Also at the school yesterday were sheriff officers who have arranged a warrant sale of the furniture and equipment next month.
And today Scottish Education Department inspectors will arrive to investigate.
Mr. Walker and Miss Herbertson will be on hand in case any of the 55 pupils turn up.
None of them turned up. The sheriff officers turned up.
I want to ask the Minister one or two questions. Where do we go from here? Has the Department taken steps to ensure that responsibility for the children who have been going there—four from Oldham, 15 from Dundee and others from Dumbarton, Edinburgh and Glasgow—is being shouldered by the local education authority? It is its responibility, and it should have been its responsibility throughout. Is the Department considering any amendment to the legislation to ensure that such schools are financially sound? Have the teachers who have not been paid and who are now unemployed any redress? Are criminal proceedings being taken by the Lord Advocate? I understood from the legal department of the social security office in Kirkcaldy that it was considering what steps it should take about the non-stamping of the national insurance cards. There are some lessons to learn here.
Mr. Taylor-Bryant told me on my first or second visit to the school that it was a non-profit-making institution but that he also owned a school catering for similarly maladjusted boys and girls in Newton Stewart, in Wigtown and that he had sold that school to the former headmaster of the school in my constituency, Mr. Sendall. What is the attraction of a non-profit-making institution? What figure did Mr. Sendall pay? When I talked to Mr. Sendall, I had heared that corporal punishment was used at Corsbie Hall and Mr. Sendall was then headmaster there. He said to me "These kids are savages. The only thing they will understand is a damned good hiding." Sendall is now the headmaster of the school in Newton Stewart. I want to know whether these great specialists, the inspectors in the Scottish Education Department, have been along to Newton Stewart and satisfied themselves that everything is all right and that Mr. Sendall is doing a philanthropic job.
The whole matter needs looking at. I shall not let it lie. I know that the Minister will castigate me, but that will not harm me. It will not influence me one iota. I believe that kids were sent to Corsbie Hall because local education authorities would not face up to their responsibilities and were willing to pay £800 a year to sweep their little problems under the carpet. Now they have been found out.
Months ago the English Secretary of State for Education advised education authorities in England not to send their children to Corsbie Hall because of a report by the inspectors of the Scottish Education Department. But the Education Department in Scotland was still allowing Scottish education authorities to send their children to the school even though the Minister said that it was not fit for English children. Oldham defied the English Minister and continued to send children to Corsbie Hall.
A society as affluent and prosperous as ours has no right to treat children in the way that they have been treated at Corsbie Hall because the parents were inadquate or inarticulate or did not want to parade the inadequacies of their children. This is a responsibility of society, which means, in this context, that it is the responsibility of the local authorities—the education authorities or


the social work departments. It cannot be shuffled off.
I want to know what will happen to Corsbie Hall. I want the Minister to give an assurance that all the other private fee-paying schools which are supposed to be catering for children of this type are financially sound and that they are being run by fully qualified staff and inspected by people who will say that if it came to the point they would send their children to those schools. If they are not prepared to say that, they have no right to say that these institutions are fit for anybody else's child.
I hope that the lesson has been learned. I give the Minister due warning that this is not the last debate that we shall have an Corsbie Hall or on the way in which we treat handicapped children.

5.26 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) is well known for over-statements. Today he has perhaps surpassed himself, using words such as "scandal" and "callous indifference" and making other statements which do not add credibility to his reputation. I certainly shall not continue in the vein which he set. I shall give a factual statement of the position. It is most disappointing that any hon. Gentleman should approach a debate of this type, particularly one dealing with children, in the manner adopted by the hon. Gentleman. I prefer to approach it in a more matter of fact and human way. The hon. Gentleman quoted at length from the Adjournment debate in April. I shall do the minimum of that, but I should like to put a few facts straight so that they are on the record.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the school opened in September, 1970, as a school for about 50 dull and difficult boys. It was given provisional registration. The hon. Gentleman indicated otherwise, but it received only provisional registration, which must be given under the law as it stands unless the proprietor had formerly been disqualified. Certainly that was not so in the case of Mr. Taylor-Bryant as prospective proprietor of Corsbie Hall. It received final registration in April, 1972, after the inspections—seven in all—by Her Majesty's Inspectors which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
I am sorry that the hon. Member continued his attack, by inference, on the inspectors, medical officer and catering adviser. Improvements suggested at previous inspections had been carried out—certainly some of them had. The staff was adequate at the time of registration. There was no question but that when final registration was given the school had achieved the necessary standard of staffing Satisfactory instruction was being given and the premises had been improved as requested by the inspectors.
I should say what the hon. Gentleman well knows, that the proprietor did not have academic qualifications, but there was no reason why he should. The far more important issue is that the headmaster should have full academic qualifications, and he had.
The subsequent collapse has been due to financial difficulties of the proprietor—and, I must say, as I said in an interjection, certainly not helped by the attacks by the hon. Gentleman. Of course, the staff began to leave when salaries were not paid or were paid late. As soon as this was brought to our attention the Secretary of State warned the proprietor—on 5th June—that the school must be properly staffed when it reopened after the holidays, which were to end on 19th July.
In the event, as the hon. Gentleman said, the proprietor declared himself bankrupt on the day the school should have reopened. The school is now closed, and has been removed from the register of independent schools as no longer in existence. So far as the present Corsbie Hall is concerned, it is closed and will remain so.
The hon. Gentleman has, of course, laid the blame on the Secretary of State. I, on my right hon. Friend's behalf, of course accept anything he said in so far as it is due to my right hon. Friend's responsibility, but that responsibility, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is limited to the Secretary of State satisfying himself as to the adequacy of the accommodation, of staffing, and of educational standards at independent schools. He is not concerned with the financial viability of the school or the proprietor.
Once a school is provisionally or finally registered, it can be struck off the register only by the formal procedure of


notice of complaint, and that can be appealed against to the Independent Schools Tribunal. The grounds of complaint are set out in Section 112 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1962. Those grounds, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, are that adequate instruction is not being provided; that the school premises, or parts of them, are unsuitable for a school; that the accommodation is inadequate; or that the proprietor of the school, or any teacher employed therein, is not a proper person to be the proprietor or to be a teacher in any school, as the case may be. Those are the only grounds on which a school can be struck off the register as the law stands at the moment. Financial difficulty, or failure to pay staff, are irrelevant unless and until they affect the efficiency of the school.
The hon. Gentleman says that he knows about the 1962 Act and, indeed, the 1969 Act, and that they do not give the Secretary of State financial responsibility for the independent schools. Well, the hon. Gentleman and his Government took the 1969 Bill through the House and I have no record of his complaining about this omission in the Bill. Indeed, I would to an extent have been surprised if he had because this had not arisen before.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I am trying to be helpful, and I am wondering if before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point he will deal with a question. I accept the point he is making about the statutory duties of the Secretary of State, but my hon. Friend raised the point about advice given by the English Ministry of Education, so, even apart from statutory responsibility, why should there have been this lack of advice from the Scottish Office, or was there a difficulty about interpretation with the English Ministry of Education?

Mr. Monro: I think the hon. Gentleman knows from his long experience that the English situation is different, In that the Secretary of State for Education and Science can forbid a local authority to send to a particular independent school pupils requiring special education. The Secretary of State for Scotland used to have similar power under Section 5 of the 1962 Act, but it was removed by the 1969 Act, to which. I am saying, the

hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife, West did not object. So the law in the two countries is somewhat different because of the 1969 Act.
In relation to the responsibility of the Secretary of State, I should tell the hon. Gentleman of the action the Secretary of State has taken. I indicated that, before registration, the school was frequently and carefully inspected. On 6th June the proprietor was warned, as I said, that standards seemed to be deteriorating because of the resignation of staff, and when it became apparent that the school was unlikely to reopen education authorities were warned not to send pupils back unless they were sure the school could receive, accommodate and educate them. It became obvious to the education authorities and to the Department that the school was unlikely to reopen on the first day of term, 19th July.
So far as the Secretary of State is concerned, he has performed his statutory duties, and one is in no way being complacent in saying this. The hon. Gentleman has played up and gone into great detail about the complications which followed the failure in financial terms of the proprietor. A great deal of what he has said can only be put right by those who have been injured in financial terms taking the appropriate legal action, but I do think that the hon. Gentleman in telling his long and lurid story has quite failed to appreciate the responsibilities laid on the Secretary of State. It would have been quite wrong for the Secretary of State to have gone into the financial position of the school. He is not required by the Act to do so.

Mr. William Hamilton: He should be.

Mr. Monro: It would be quite wrong to have done so. The hon. Gentleman, in his usual style, says that my right hon. Friend shoud be required to do that, but if that is to be, there will have to be a change in legislation. The hon. Gentleman had his chance to do that in 1969, but he did not do it.

Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has got the chance now.

Mr. Monro: It is no good the hon. Gentleman's sitting and girning away when he has had his chance and failed to take it.

Mr. William Hamilton: I was not there.

Mr. Monro: He should have been there, and not just grinning away at a situation which he then felt to be wrong and which he feels to be wrong now. I wish that occasionally he would try to face the difficulties of lack of legislation, if the hon. Gentleman feels that matters are wrong.
He has implied criticism of the education authorities, because it is their duty to see that the children for whom they are responsible are looked after adequately at the schools to which the children have been sent. Frequently the local authorities have sent responsible officials from their education departments and social work departments to see the school and, generally speaking, they were satisfied. The hon. Gentleman may take off at that, but it is a statement of fact. Some have said that they are sorry the school has closed. That is strictly on the position as it was when the school was fully staffed and registered.
The hon. Gentleman wants to know what we are doing about providing places. The education authorities are providing new places. Over 100 residential places are planned in Aberdeenshire, Dumfries and Fife, and over 120 day places, to add to the present total of 421 residential places available in Scotland. I know that the hon. Gentleman would like all these places to be provided by local authorities, and one day this may be so, but at present the independent schools are doing a good job and meeting a need. I am taking no steps to reduce the number of independent schools making this provision.
The hon. Gentleman asks what has happened to the pupils who were at Corsbie Hall. At the end of last term there were 48 Scottish pupils. One of these has reached leaving age, so 47 had to be placed. There are still 25 who have not been placed, but the hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that for most special schools term does not begin until the end of this month. Of the remainder, 10 will go back to ordinary schools, six to day special schools, four are at independent residential schools, one is in a list D school and one is in hospital for examination. A fair number of places

have been provided for those who would have gone back to Corsbie Hall.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of a public inquiry in relation to what I said during the Adjournment debate in May. My right hon. Friend and I still see no need for an inquiry into this type of provision.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman has told us that four out of the 40 pupils are to be placed in independent schools of this type—

Mr. Monro: Four have been placed.

Mr. Buchan: Four have been placed and the rest have been fitted in elsewhere, some into ordinary day schools. It does not argue the case for the preservation of such schools if nine-tenths of the children have been placed elsewhere since the demise of Corsbie Hall.

Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman perhaps did not take the point that there are still 25 who have not been placed. If 10 pupils, at least temporarily and perhaps permanently, have been accepted into ordinary schools this shows that Corsbie Hall made some success of their education—one could not say the reverse.
I was saying that the Secretary of State and I do not feel that a public inquiry is required. The facts that I have given today are perfectly clear. As I have said, the financial difficulties are no concern of the Secretary of State and entirely a matter between the proprietor and his creditors.
I have also been asked by the hon. Gentleman about the position of the Lord Advocate. I cannot say more than my right hon. and learned Friend said today. He must look at the evidence before he comes to a conclusion.
The school at Newton Stewart has been inspected and is due for another inspection this month. So I ask the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. William Hamilton: —to keep quiet!

Mr. Monro: That is impossible. I would never ask him to keep quiet. The House of Commons would seem a very strange place without his contributions, however controversial they are. As I said at the beginning, it is necessary to keep this matter in perspective. Here was a


small independent school doing reasonably satisfactory work with 50 children. The local authorities who sent the children there were reasonably satisfied about the education and the home life of the boys. The fees at the school were not out of line with those at any other independent school of this kind and were probably no higher than a local authority would have to pay for equal provision. Any school of this size is vulnerable to attacks such as it received from the hon. Gentleman in relation to its financial position. This aggravated the staff difficulties, and that is why my right hon. Friend and I warned the proprietor as soon as the staff dropped below the level at which it was on the date when the school was registered.
For the pupils' sake, I hope that all the education authorities involved will be able to make provision for these boys as soon as possible. Now that the hon. Gentleman has had his way and the school has been closed and removed from the register, I hope he will allow other similar schools to continue to give this valuable provision for children who are handicapped in one way or another, so that they may enjoy their school days in peace and quiet. I think that he has grossly overplayed the whole affair of Corsbie Hall, although he has achieved his objective.

NORTH SEA OIL

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I beg to make use of an ancient privilege of the House to raise under Class IV, Votes 1 and 7, the need to review policy in relation to North Sea oil. I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State in his place because I know that he has a great deal of knowledge of this topic, going back to his previous incarnation when he was with Phillips Petroleum Company.
It is my duty and responsibility, as on the first occasion when I raised this topic at length in an Adjournment debate in November last, to pay a particular tribute on behalf of us all to the people who are engaged in the exploration for and production of North Sea oil under difficult circumstances. I hope the Minister will tell us—although it may

be outwith his sphere of responsibility—what progress has been made on the laying down of codes of practice on rigs and standards of safety for the construction of rigs.
Although much of the technology that has been used in the North Sea is of United States generation, we are moving now into depths that are unknown off Louisiana. We are moving into depths of water of up to 400 ft. and perhaps even deeper. Farther west work may even be going on at depths of 1,000 ft. and perhaps more. The technology that is appropriate for depths of 200 ft. is not necessarily the technology required at much deeper levels and there are more hazards and arduous conditions at those depths in the North Sea.
Although we should take full account of what is happening in the United States on this subject, we must lay down our own standards. I know that if my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) were present he would be pleading for standards of safety to be laid down for those engaged in diving. Again we should not adopt the practice in the United States without seeking greater knowledge on our own part.
I wish to acknowledge the fact that the Government are becoming more aware of the feeling of discontent in this House about the amount of information on oil and gas production in the North Sea. I hope that the Minister, having heard the Minister's reply on the last debate on this topic, will not in a few years' time, if he is still in that office for that length of time, accuse me of not having raised the matter. I have raised this subject today on this legislation, and I also have a Bill, introduced under the Ten-Minute Rule, which clearly lays down some of the points which I wish to see put in legislative form.
The Minister for Industry told the House on 27th July, when replying to a debate on the Scottish economy:
I think that the House is entitled to a better presentation of the information available. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1972; Vol. 841, c. 2191.]
That at least is a small step forward. Although I welcome that statement, it is no substitute for better and more information on the North Sea situation,


which is what we require. We should also like to see a complete new look at the methods adopted for the granting of export and other licences in the North Sea and also information about oil companies engaged in North Sea operations.
The conditions under which licences are issued under the Continental Shelf Act are well known to the House and I shall not detain hon. Members by going into that background. The licences are for a six-year period and relate to payments made on the basis of a square kilometre, the royalties being paid at a rate of 12½ per cent. in terms of wellhead prices.
In April, 1971, a major innovation took place in the fourth round of licences. The idea of using the established discretionary methods of licensing was varied; it was decided to allocate 15 blocks by means of competitive tender or, in common parlance, to auction them. The reasons for this departure have never adequately been explained. As I understand it, the 15 blocks put up for auction were supposed to be representative of all the blocks put out at that time. To take an analogy in another field of operation, let us suppose that there are 100 houses up for sale. If one is not sure of the market value, one may well say, "Let us auction 10 of them." One may then find that the bidding goes to £10,000 for each house. In those circumstances in view of the fact that £10,000 can be achieved for a single house, one would be very reluctant to say, "My normal method is to sell the other 99 houses at £100 at time".
In this instance the situation involves the auctioning of 15 blocks for which £37 million has been received. These blocks were representative of the total allocation at the time. If that is the case, why did we receive only £3 million for the other 267 blocks? Will the Minister say how much information he has received about the blocks which have been allocated up to the present?
Hon. Members opposite have made great play of the fact that the Labour Party has issued a discussion document. Let us have no snide remarks about this document since it must be emphasised that it is a discussion document. It says that we intend to look at the conditions of licences and that we may alter them.
When the Conservative Government came to power they knew that certain

criteria were laid down in the third round of allocations for public participation. However, the present Government issued no discussion document when they, for doctrinaire reasons, in the fourth round removed the public participation concept. Why did that happen? What were the changes which occurred between the third and fourth rounds to necessitate the removal of public participation in the fourth round—a round which was to be very lucrative, so far as we can discover, in the allocation of blocks in the North Sea?
We are told that the total investment in the North Sea has reached £300 million. May we be told how much of that has been in gas and how much in oil? What system has the Department of Trade and Industry to monitor this investment? As I understand it, the figures we have been given are not the Department's figures but figures supplied by the oil companies. The Department has no means whatever of accurately monitoring the investment undertaken by the oil companies in North Sea operations. If there are no means to indicate the total expenditure by companies, what means are there for the Government to ensure that companies extend their assets in the United Kingdom? What happens at the moment is that we are given a total figure or a total percentage and we must accept it. We have no monitoring mechanism available for this purpose.
I turn to consider the experience in other countries, particularly that in respect of public participation. We are told that in the latest round of allocations the Norwegians have reserved 75 blocks for the State. Has any thought been given to reserving parts of future allocations in the North Sea for the Unite Kingdom Government based on public participation, either through a State oil company or some other established public corporation in this country, to undertake the production of blocks allocated to them by the State?
We also have available from the Norwegian Government information about the State oil company. I wish to refer to Report No. 76 made by the Petroleum Division of the Ministry of Industry in Norway to the Norwegian Storting. On page 23 of that Report the Ministry of Industry sets out its proposals for setting up a State oil company.


It goes even further in Section 4 of that Report and indicates its method of approach. This is the sort of information which we ought to have. The report says:
In connection with the first production licences granted, the licencees undertook by a gentleman's agreement with the authorities to employ bases in Norway, Norwegian industry and Norwegian labour, provided that such goods and services are competitive in terms of price and time.
The report continues:
This condition underlines the fact that the authorities would like Norwegian industry to take part in all phases of the operations on the Continental Shelf.
This is a public statement and part of the negotiations, and the companies getting the benefit of production and exploration on the Norwegian section of the continental shelf are now to give more than a gentleman's agreement in relation to the use of Norwegian facilities. Why cannot we have the same? The British Government might have to review any GATT agreements. But is not Norway a signatory to GATT? Why should we in the United Kingdom give the oil companies conditions that are less onerous than those that apply in another country engaged in exploration on the continental shelf?

Mr. William Ross: This is an opportunity to get all these facts on record. Also in regard to that report, will my hon. Friend deal with the question of the carried interest condition that has been placed upon the latest block advertised by the Norwegian Government, whereby it will be a condition that whenever there is a successful strike, an interest for the Norwegian nation has got to be accepted?

Mr. Douglas: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I wanted to deal with that point when I deal with a certain innovation that has occurred in the financial arrangements of British Petroleum. It is a very important point.
I turn now to the question of oil refining. The oil companies are to enjoy, in relation to the licence agreements they have to undertake, the advantage of being able to bring the oil ashore in the United Kingdom. But as I understand it, there is nothing in the agreements to require these companies to refine the oil in the

United Kingdom. In my Private Member's Bill I ask that the oil companies ought to be asked to give good reasons why they should not refine the oil in the United Kingdom. I can see that there may be technological reasons in the mixes of crude why this should not be done. But when the oil will come ashore in 1974–75 at a production rate of 20 to 25 million tons a year, which will be in excess of Scotland's refining capacity at that time, we should not leave it to the oil companies to decide where they want to refine the oil. This should be at least discussed between the Department of Trade and Industry and the oil companies.
Turning to the point raised by my right hon. Friend, it will not have escaped the notice of hon. Members that the financial arrangements have now been altered, particularly in relation to British Petroleum. British Petroleum has had to raise a massive sum of £360 million from a consortium of banks. If oil is discovered in certain areas of the Norwegian continental shelf there is an indication of public participation. But in this case, unless I have it wrong, what British Petroleum has done in these very peculiar financial arrangements of raising the £360 million is to borrow it from a consortium, and it will then sell the oil to the consortium. I understand that if there are any difficulties, should there be default on the part of the company, the first claim on the oil will be that of the consortium. That strikes me as an alteration in the licensing arrangements. But I am told on very good authority that the Department of Trade and Industry will recognise the claims of the banking consortium and special companies. I may be wrong, but I do not think that the House has been informed of that. Therefore, I should like to hear the Minister's views as to whether the Government, in relation to even a company of the magnitude of British Petroleum and although it is partly publicly owned—a company of that size; not necessarily British Petroleum—accept this type of method of financing this kind of operation.
These operations are difficult to finance. But this innovation is of an American pattern. We have somewhat waived the normal licensing agreements. We are not saying, "When you discover


the oil there will be public participation", as the Norwegians say. We are saying that although 50 per cent. of the money is United Kingdom money, we are prepared to allow a large amount of the money and control to be foreign, although the consortium is registered in the United Kingdom. Here we have the major British find of oil, but we know that other banking concerns are moving in and saying that they will have their share at fairly lucrative rates of interest. I recognise the reasons, but nevertheless the House is entitled to an explanation from the Minister.
My final point relates to the assessment of fuel policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) has made a particular investigation of this matter, and I hope that he will catch Mr. Speaker's eye. North Sea oil affects our overall fuel policy. As well as supplying a White Paper on North Sea Oil, the Government ought to show initiative and supply a White Paper on the totality of fuel policy. We may not wish to use North Sea oil merely as a fuel but also as part of a total energy system related to nuclear power and as a very valuable resource for the production of commodities other than fuels. Therefore, the Government ought to make a statement very soon as to their views about the effect of North Sea oil and its potentiality on fuel policy as a whole.
I believe that the total finds have been completely underestimated by the Government. The figures I have seen do not correspond to the production levels given of 100 million tons by the 1980s. I consider that the oil companies, in their own interests, are writing this down at present. A figure of 300 million tons by the 1980s would certainly not be an exaggeration. The oil companies are being very coy as to the finds off Shetland. The hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) received a very terse reply to a Question on 25th July in relation to those finds.
We must have a better assessment of all that is involved. We require a White Paper on this subject and much more information. I hope that the Minister will say that at least we shall get the type of information available to members of the Norwegian Parliament.

Mr. Speaker: May I, with respect, repeat something that I said during an

earlier debate? I hope that those hon. Members who have drawn the early numbers will be reasonable about the time. The first debate took 67 minutes and the next took 55 minutes. I think that an hour, or perhaps a little more, is reasonable. I hope that hon. Members who catch my eye will bear that in mind.

6.10 p.m.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) on choosing this subject within the context of this debate. I will take up his cue and concentrate my remarks on the impact which North Sea oil is likely to have on the whole energy sector of the United Kingdom economy.
I do not believe that any sensible discussion of a particular fuel can take place unless it is within the context of energy as a whole. Although I may be repeating well-worn arguments, I know that the interrelationship between different fuels, because of their interchangeability for both electricity generation and the final consumer, means that any public decision about any one fuel is bound to have serious counter-effects on other fuels. Therefore, I think the Government must adopt an approach which was tried by the Labour Government, whereby all matters of fuel policy are considered together.
To my mind, the only way this can be done satisfactorily is by the use of mathematical model techniques. I understand that within the Department such models have been developed. Only by these techniques can the close relationship between the different primary fuels available to us be properly worked out.
This approach received its first official blessing in the famous White Paper of November, 1967, Cmnd. 3438, entitled "Fuel Policy". That document had a mixed reception. Its critics included many people who are involved in the coal industry whose criticism arose in many respects because of the prediction within the document of a continuing decline in the demand for coal.
I can well understand criticism of that nature, representing a constituency which includes two collieries, one of which, at Kellingley, is among the most modern in the country. However, I do not accept that this is a criticism of an integrated


energy policy. People may not have liked the results which came out of the policy, but that is no particular criticism of adopting the integrated approach. Indeed, the only way of planning for a secure future in the coal industry is by calculating precisely the effects and counter-effects between coal and other fuels. I know this in particular having a professional background in the oil and electricity supply industries and now representing a constituency which includes four power stations, has three others nearby, and is within easy distance of the oil and gas installations on the Humber. Unless Governments adopt a fully comprehensive energy policy, the laws of the economic jungle will apply and coal will probably suffer most. It is in the interests of the coal industry that we adopt an overall fuel policy.
The forecasts of the 1967 White Paper have turned out to be remarkably correct for coal and natural gas. Figures given to be by the Under-Secretary of State in a Written Answer on 15th June show that the use of those two primary fuels in 1971 was almost bang on the predictions of the White Paper. The White Paper has gone astray only in respect of nuclear power, which has barely exceeded its 1966 total, and of oil which is already exceeding its forecast level for 1975. It may be that technical problems relating to nuclear reactors are largely responsible for these discrepancies.
Apart from that slight imbalance, the approach of the 1967 White Paper has been shown to be basically correct. I think that it is a good foundation on which the Government should attempt to build now. There is a need at this date, five years after the White Paper, to update it, to extend it—not to replace it, but to build upon it. I noticed the Oral Answers which were given to the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) on 5th June in which the Secretary of State was very shy of committing himself on this subject. At least he could have undertaken to place continued reliance on the kind of techniques adumbrated in the 1967 White Paper.
The major factor which has come on to the scene since 1967 is the very subject of this debate—North Sea oil. Policy for the use of North Sea oil will make

sense only within the overall context of a national fuel policy. Almost a new fuel has come on the scene. It may be chemically similar to petroleum from foreign parts, but strategically we have basically a new ingredient in the situation here. Whereas the 1967 White Paper talks of our moving to a four-fuel economy, we have now come to a five-fuel economy.
I think that three basic differences between North Sea oil and oil from foreign sources should be considered. First, we have been told that one restraint on using oil as a primary fuel in this country has been the security, the strategic, factor, especially where the producing countries have been in areas of political unrest. My hon. Friends representing Scottish constituencies will know far better than I what is the likelihood of political unrest in those parts, but I cannot imagine that this is a significant factor, although rigs at sea and underwater pipelines are somewhat vulnerable for any would-be enemies.
Secondly, we have in the past been told that the cost of imported fuels bearing on our balance of payments should be a major consideration in fuel policy. Again, North Sea oil obviously differs from foreign oil in this respect, although, following my hon. Friend, I wonder how far this particular difference has been blurred by the way in which Government negotiators, in the licensing of exploration rights on our continental shelf, have come to terms with the oil companies. It is estimated that, when North Sea oil is in full production, this country will be enabling foreign oil companies to take from our shores £700 million more per year than would have been the case if our negotiators had been as tough as some of the older oil-producing countries in this assignation of exploration rights.
The third way in which North Sea oil differs from foreign oil lies in its employment opportunities for our own people, particularly in Scotland. These benefits can be exaggerated to some extent, partly because oil is not a labour-intensive industry, like coal, and partly because most foreign oil coming to this country is refined here, often for re-export. Employment opportunities, particularly in parts of Scotland where there is severe


unemployment, must certainly be kept closely in mind in the development of an integrated fuel policy.
To sum up, I place on record for the first time in this House my view that a national energy policy, based on mathematical techniques, is essential for planning the well-being of the many people in this country who are involved with energy in any form. North Sea oil should be regarded as an entirely new factor to be incorporated in these calculations. Its discovery is potentially one of the best things that has happened for Britain in hundreds of years, but only the proper planning of its use can ensure that the benefits which are derived are maximised.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) on raising this topic. I shall not follow my son. Friend on the technical and financial aspects or follow my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) in his request for a national fuel policy. Those matters have been adequately covered. I am more concerned with the general economics of the situation.
In the general discussions about the use to which North Sea oil might be put, there have been discussions as to how far the oil should be refined within the boundaries of Scotland or of the United Kingdom, and how far the export of crude oil to be refined elsewhere in Europe might be used as a balance of payments factor.
I am worried because the Government seem to be taking the view that the exploitation of oil and the way in which the benefits are spread throughout the country is a matter for the oil companies alone. I am concerned to see that the good of the nation is given paramount concern. I do not know whether one gets a dose of delirium tremens from a whiff of North Sea oil or gas, but that is the kind of position which the Government are in. Whenever North Sea oil is discussed, we are always told by the Government how many jobs have been created in the North-East of Scotland and how Aberdeen is becoming the Texas of Britain. We are told that tremendous confidence will arise in the North East because of the discovery of North Sea oil.
The Government are perfectly entitled to claim that their present policies are successful because many jobs have been created, although the number has not been defined—some people say 10,000 and some 7,500. The figures vary but the Government are entitled, with 138,000 presently unemployed in Scotland, to clutch at any straw. I concede that in North Sea oil—I accept that I am mixing metaphors—the Government are clutching a substantial straw. Of course, the Government are anxious to prove that, as a result of their policies, and because of the way they have tackled North Sea oil, new jobs are being created. That is something for which they must claim the credit.
However, when it comes to major decisions which might be open to later criticism or even present criticism, the Government tend to opt out of their responsibilities. They say that major decisions on the general economic future of the country are not directly for the Government. For example, if one wishes to tackle the Government about the rôle of British steel in the economy, and the investment decisions and the new ideas which have to be pursued or might be pursued by British steel, the Government say that that is not a matter for them but for the British Steel Corporation. If one approaches the Government about the speed, the manner and the style of planning decisions, the Government retreat from the scene and say, "That is a matter for the local authorities". If one tackles the Government and criticises them for their Scottish harbour development policy, one is told that that is a matter not for them but for the harbour board authorities.
In other words, the Government are approaching the traditional laissez-faire attitude. The oil is there, and oil means money, but how the money is spent, we are told, is a matter for private enterprise to argue and fight about. I am worried that the Government are putting all their eggs into one basket. When they say that there will be spin-off from the discovery of North Sea oil, and from that spin-off all the deep-seated problems of unemployment and poverty in the depressed and under-developed parts of the country will be solved.
The Government have often misunderstood our criticism when we have


attacked their decisions on these matters. I have been a persistent critic of the Government's policy regarding the Aberdeen Harbour Board and Aberdeen's development as an oil port for the oil service rigs. Somehow the Government have taken the view, because I criticised the manner in which they took their decision to give a loan to the harbour board rather than giving it grants, that my criticism is carping. That is not so. I am concerned that the board had to postpone well-laid plans which were thought of, discussed and projected for a number of years before North Sea oil was discovered. The fishery developments were to be postponed for five or six years because the harbour board was forced to make up its mind on a commercial development in relation to North Sea oil.
I know that the position has since changed because of the imminent entry of Britain into the EEC. The Government made certain investment decisions regarding fisheries and the projected developments at Aberdeen have been brought forward again. However, that was purely fortuitous and not because of a well-argued and well-thought-out development policy.
The Government are saying that the future of the North East is either with applied oil technology or with allied oil technology, and that that is where all the problems must be solved. One is forced to make the dreadful pun that man does not live by oil alone. However, the Government seem to be suggesting that oil will solve everything. They say that a tremendous number of service jobs have been generated within the economy of the North East of Scotland.
I do not decry service industries or service industry jobs. Any jobs which come because of North Sea oil are important and acceptable. But who gets these jobs? I saw an estimate that 60 per cent. of the jobs so far created have been filled by the recruitment of local people. I do not know whether that is an accurate assessment and I shall be grateful if the Government can give us an accurate assessment. Many people have complained to me that they have written to the oil companies but have received no answer.
The only people who have so far benefited in any conspicuous way from the discovery of North Sea oil are the Aberdeen property developers. There is no doubt that the most rapid growth industry in Aberdeen is the selling of houses. The value of houses and the rents of vacant properties have increased at a pace no one has known in the past. It even exceeds the exploitation of student accommodation.
However, there is only conspicuous evidence of North Sea oil in Aberdeen. I accept that confidence in the North-East of Scotland is important. I know that those of us who criticise the Government's policies can be accused of being Jonahs and putting on a gloomy face and possibly destroying some of the confidence and keeping away some firms from Aberdeen and the surrounding districts. However, that is not my purpose. It would be foolish if we were to take refuge in the kind of hallucinations in which the Government are taking refuge. It is foolish to look at the apparently limitless pool of North Sea oil and to say, "We do not need to worry about the problems in the North East which have existed for generations and which we have begun to solve." Confidence is important but only in the long term.
No one can accurately forecast or speculate how long the oil boom will last. I think that the production and exploitation side will last for a considerable time. However, even within that time scale, which may be eight or ten years, we have to go further than relying on oil. We have to look towards the regeneration of the economy of the region. Without looking too much on the black side of things, it is important to recognise that those hon. Members representing North-East constituencies—I represent one part of Aberdeen—thought we were beginning to see the kind of industries coming into Aberdeen and into the region which could bring back and use the skills which we always had.
Many engineering firms in the North-East of Scotland have closed down during the past 20 years. Almost all the foundries in Aberdeen have closed down. We were looking for new industries. We had the possibility of Mullard's opening a first-class modern electronics plant but unfortunately, due to the position of the


electronics industry generally, it did not go ahead. We have also lost some of the clothing industries of the North East.
There is another aspect to be cautious about. We want to see new firms coming to the North East and I want to see the Government using the tremendous revenues from North Sea oil not just for service industries or for applied and allied oil technology but for other industries to keep the whole economy moving. If that is done, we shall see something really worthwhile, but the Government are not yet doing enough about it. This is why I agree that it is important to see a strong move by the Government to keep additional oil refining capacity within Scotland.
I do not take the view that every single drop of oil from the North Sea has to be refined within the boundaries of Scotland or, indeed, of the United Kingdom. If one took that attitude, all Middle East oil would be refined in the Middle East, with the result that some of our traditional refineries would not exist. But there is a strong case for additional oil refineries, because they would bring allied jobs on the petrochemical side which are also important. I hope that the Government will do more about that.
The Government have a responsibility, even if it is not direct, to see that every avenue is explored in getting the benefits from North Sea oil and from the technology. In this month's issue of the British Steel Corporation's magazine, there are excellent figures about how the corporation is becoming involved in production and rigs through subsidiaries and supplying steel. The corporation is anxious to show how much of the steel piping it has supplied, but there is one type of piping that it has not supplied—the undersea piping. This is because there is no capacity for it in Britain. Undersea pipes have to come from Japan. We are speaking now about the general position of oil technology and oil exploration, not simply of what happens off the shores of Britain.
It is generally recognised that between now and the end of the century the major oil finds will be not on land but off shore. Tremendous developments are forecast off Japan, Ireland and other countries, where drilling is taking place in deeper and deeper waters. The oil will have to

be brought ashore through undersea pipes. What are the Government doing to encourage the British steel industry to study the possibility of laying down special plant to produce undersea pipes not just for North Sea oil but for export markets as well?
There will always be a difference between the two sides of the House about how far the Government should influence industry. I do not believe that we shall ever resolve that difference. But I would like to think that we all agree that the Government should take an active part. I think that they should. But I am satisfied that, unless we change direction and do not rely entirely on oil but look at the broad spectrum of possibilities, the hope and confidence of all of us that oil can be the greatest boon for this country will not be fulfilled and the Scottish economy will not be developed to its full potential. I hope that the Government will start learning the lessons which they have so far avoided.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Gavin Strang: I, too, am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) for obtaining this debate. Last week the Secretary of State for Scotland described in our debate on Scottish affairs the discovery of North Sea oil as being the most important economic development in Scotland this century. There is no question of that. By far and away it is indeed the most important development. It is only this year that the evidence has become available to show just how big the oil reserve is, and more oil is likely to be discovered.
But it is fair to say that Scottish industry, the Scottish people generally, the Government and the Opposition to some extent have been a little slow in appreciating just how important this development is for the Scottish economy and how important it is to act quickly and to evolve a new approach. The attitude is changing, and I think that my hon. Friend himself has made a substantial contribution to the changing attitude in Scotland and of the media generally.
One could raise a whole host of issues about North Sea oil. There has been a great deal of controversy in Scotland about royalties and to whom they should


be paid. Whose are they? Are they the Government's? Are they Scottish or British? There is the controversy about the rôle which oil should play in our energy requirements. Should we use less coal because we have oil? My answer to that is, "No", but I shall not dwell on it now. There has been argument about the pollution aspect. Will it damage the countryside in certain parts of Scotland? That is certainly an aspect about which we should be concerned. How long will the oil last?
All these are important issues, but there is one which I believe is at present far more important in the short term—the question of seeing that the services, materials and equipment required by the oil companies in connection with exploration and the landing of the oil are provided by Scottish and British firms. That is the major short-term challenge facing the Government. The Government have a responsibility to see that a very substantial proportion of the equipment and services comes from Scottish firms, because there is no doubt that the size of the operations could have an immense effect on the Scottish economy. For example, about 50 per cent. of the material is steel.
We are talking not just about the North-East of Scotland in this context but of industry throughout Scotland. I visited Brunton's in my constituency last year and found that the firm had not done much then about oil. But when I returned there recently about another issue, the firm was able to tell me that it had a representative looking into the question of getting contracts with oil firms and that he was making some progress. Only in the last fortnight a group of engineering firms has formed a consortium to see what can be done to supply the North Sea oil industry.
But even allowing for the change of attitude which has taken place and for the fact that oil is becoming more and more important, there is no doubt that we are not making anything like the contribution that we should. There is sufficient evidence for this from other countries and from talking to people on the spot—for example, the manager of the BP Forties field. The Government must accept the responsibility to do

everything they can in the short term to improve the situation.
I am not blaming the Government for the situation. It is a new development. It is not something that we can criticise the Government for not doing last year. But we can point out that this is an urgent issue and will not wait. The questions of the rate of extraction, pollution and royalties are not nearly as urgent as this one.
What more can the Government do to see that more jobs are created in Scotland as a result of the discovery of oil in the North Sea? That is what the matter comes to. How can we create these additional jobs? As with every other problem, there are two ways of looking at it. First, one has to bring pressure on the oil companies and to evolve a way of dealing with them in order to show that it is in their financial interest to buy British materials. Obviously, we have to make it profitable for them to do so because they will not do it out of goodness of heart. One must give credit to many companies which have gone out of their way to give orders to British industry, but we have to ensure that it is profitable for the oil industry to buy from British firms.
It is true that this was a factor that was considered when licences were allocated. Firms were required to give some indication that they proposed to make the maximum use of Scottish and British industry. But even now the Government have no way of putting continuing pressure on companies to buy more of their materials from Scottish and British industry. I hope that the Government will look closely at the possibility of evolving some fiscal incentive for the oil companies, perhaps through some form of taxation—I am not pretending that it is easy and my suggestion may turn out to be impracticable—to buy their materials from Scottish or at least British firms.
But that is only one approach and it is the second approach that I wish to consider more carefully. This approach is to make it easier for the supplying companies to provide the materials. It was said at a meeting of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee by the manager of the BP Forties field that BP had wanted British firms to build a 1,200-ton


crane, for instance. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) mentioned the piping to be on the sea bed—of course the bulk of the land piping will be supplied by British firms. But BP found that the reaction of British companies asked to provide equipment or technical know-how in the North Sea field was to say that they were not in that business. For instance, a firm asked to build an oil rig would reply that it was basically a ship-building firm and saw no reason why it should risk spending money in another activity from which it could not be sure of making a profit.
That attitude may be criticised and it may be said that Scottish industry is not sufficiently adventurous. That is often said of British industry and there are undoubtedly failings in that respect. But the matter cannot be left there. The Government have a responsibility to alleviate the problem, to create a situation in which more British firms are prepared to compete for these orders.
There is a strong case for the Government providing direct support to some firms to encourage them to invest in acquiring the necessary skills and expertise. I see no reason why the Government should not carefully consider offering development contracts to firms in order to assist them to acquire the necessary expertise. How it could be done is clear. There would be discussions with the companies about what they might require and firms could approach the Government for selective assistance. I am not sure to what extent the Government might be able to use the Industry Bill for this purpose.
If the Government can provide development contracts, rightly in my view, to enable the computer industry to acquire expertise and to develop new ideas, and if massive financial support can be given to the aircraft industry, I see no reason why the Government should not carefully consider adopting a similar approach to firms learning the North Sea oil business. There is a danger that the benefit to be obtained from North Sea oil in terms of additional jobs and higher wages for the people of Scotland will be lost if there is not a more urgent approach by the Government to this problem.
In five years' time we may look back and say that British industry responded

reasonably well, but other firms, not only the Americans but the French and Dutch and Italian firms, which are all in this business in a big way, bigger than most British firms, will still be the major suppliers of the oil companies. Of course British firms are making a bigger contribution, but if it were right for the Governments of those other countries to encourage the development of the offshore industry, it is reasonable to ask the British Government to provide help for Scottish firms and for British industry to enable them to adjust rapidly, so that they may respond to this challenge and so that North Sea oil may make an immense contribution to the Scottish economy.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Alex Eadie: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) on his enterprise and initiative in raising this subject. It is a pity that we are not able to have more debates on a subject of such great importance not only for Scotland but for the whole nation. All of us wish that the North Sea were floating with oil, because it is the wealth of the nation and the wealth of the nation is beneficial to the people.
But I hope that we shall all make it clear to the general public that oil is a fossil fuel and that as such it is a wasting asset. I hope that we shall not hear nonsense such as we heard from the Chairman of the Highlands and Islands Development Board who said that this great wealth should be burnt in order to generate electricity which would be fed into the national grid. That is not the way to use this great national asset. But we must keep a proper perspective.
On 11th March, we were told by the Department of Trade and Industry that by 1975 we could expect to have about 25 million tons of oil a year and that by 1980 the figure would have risen to 75 million tons. In the United Kingdom we use about 150 million tons a year. People who talk of an unlimited supply of North Sea oil are doing a great disservice to other industries. They are doing a great disservice to the coal industry, for it has already been suggested that we do not have to worry about other fossil fuels, such as coal, now that we have an abundance of oil and even that we could


embark on a policy of contracting the coal industry.
We do not have an abundance of oil. Let us hope that we get more than has been predicted, but it must be remembered that the world is now using more oil than it is finding. The United States of America is probably the world's greatest user and it has had to grasp this problem. It has already been calculated that because of the appetite of industry in the United States, with indigenous supplies able to meet only 40 per cent. of demand, vast quantities of oil will have to be imported and that may mean that America will have to devalue the dollar.
We know that the North Sea and the Middle East contain about two-thirds of the world's known oil resources. There will never be any cheap oil. North Sea oil will not be cheap, but it will be valuable to us. There will be no cheap oil anywhere in the world.
I hope the Government are seized of the importance of this matter of energy. I hope that we shall not have the silly policy of trying to deceive the people into believing that there is an abundance of oil and that we can, therefore, contract our other sources of fossil fuel. We cannot close our pits as one closes a factory. When a pit is closed it is closed for all time. It is finished. I hope that when the Minister replies he will indicate that he is seized of this point. All fossil fuels are a wasting asset. Oil is a wasting asset. The Government have a duty to make sure that we use our supplies of North Sea oil wisely and in the interests of the nation as a whole.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: I, too, have been in a Committee all the afternoon and I have missed much of what has been said in the debate.
I wish to make only one point. I, with other hon. Members, am concerned to see that the greatest benefit is obtained from oil for Britain. But I should like to put in a cautionary word. We have a very beautiful country in Scotland, particularly in the area where the oil will be brought in. In terms of wild life and scenic beauty, it is a rich country, and it would be a shame, which would last for generations, if in the course of

bringing in the oil on this lovely coastline we were to pay little attention to what we might destroy.
I agree that there must be some damage, but I ask the Government, and particularly the Scottish Minister concerned, to ensure that this damage is kept to the minimum possible. Despite the wealth which we may get from the oil, we have a duty to preserve our natural amenities.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: The last two speakers have reminded me that this is not just a discussion of a major industry. It is a discussion of the whole problem of social control and social responsibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) referred to the effect that the oil industry may have on an existing major industry and on the environment. I stress that this is not merely a debate on oil. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) on initiating this debate and on drawing attention to the necessity to face the social consequences. At Question time today the Secretary of State said that we were trying to endanger the livelihood of those involved in the industry, and reference was made to a quotation from the Labour Party policy document. It is as well to remind ourselves that when we are dealing with a kind of windfall to the nation, with a new resource which has not existed before in a practical form—a point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall)—as the Chairman of the Scottish Conservative Party, said, there is an immense responsibility to exert the right kind of public control from the beginning.
The Labour Party document says:
We shall reconsider the exploration and exploitation of North Sea gas, and particularly the oil discoveries off Scotland, and bring them more firmly under public control, whilst extending public ownership. Wherever possible we will diversify and expand the operation of the existing public sector.
This is part of a discussion document, and all sorts of aspects of it have to be thrashed out in detail, but by and large this sets out the view held by hon. Members on this side of the House that there must be a large element of social and public control of this new resource which


should be used effectively for the benefit of the nation.
It is clear that the licensing method that we have adopted in the past has not been the best. Looking at the American system and their treatment of their continental shelf, it would seem that with their system an extra £200 million would be flowing into Britain because of the 16⅔ per cent. royalties. My hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire referred to 15 lots being sold for about £30 million. Many of the other lots have been handed over like Green Shield stamps. This must be changed. We should auction not only on a cash basis but on a royalty basis. The royalties have certain fringe benefits, and they can be immensely important. They can be related to work in Britain, to the employment of British firms and so on. There is the Norwegian experience which does not appear to have been properly considered by the Government, according to Answers that we have received. Clearly, the writing in of public involvement, the option of the Government to share in the development, as occurs in Norway, will have to be introduced in this country. It is no use saying that this will frighten off the oil companies. I do not believe it will. They know the values of the various areas which have been successfully exploited and the kind of profits which are likely to be obtained. I have no objection to private exploration so long as this option is written in with a reversion of sections of the areas to the nation afterwards.
There is a second aspect of this matter which was stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), namely, what evidence are we getting that the Government, and particularly the Scottish Office, who have a great responsibility, are taking a lead in job production in this industry? My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East referred to development grants given to firms in order that their expertise can he developed. But some of the figures suggest a serious possibility that, if we leave things as they are, oil exploration could continue and the landing of oil could continue, with very few additional jobs coming to Scotland. The oil could he exported raw. Refining does not of itself, without the ancillary industries involved, entail a great expansion in manpower.
There is little indication of a lead coming from the Government in this respect. This was precisely the burden of Sir William McEwan Younger's remarks when he said that we could not leave this sort of thing just to the firms, whose primary interest was in the exploitation and expropriation of the oil. We want an assurance from the Government—we have not had it from the Scottish Office, and we hope to hear it from the Department of Trade and Industry—that a lead is being given to promote development spin-off, particularly in jobs.
In Scotland today, we have a persistent unemployment problem, with 138,000 out of work, and we face the decline of one of our other great mineral industries, coal mining. It is not good enough that matters should go ahead without a proper return to the Scottish economy. I hope that we shall hear a reply which will encourage us to believe that the Government are taking practical steps on the two questions facing us and give us a little more comfort than we have had hitherto.

7.1 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): This fairly thorough debate has underlined that the concern felt by many hon. Members on both sides is strongly reflected in Scotland. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) not only on the background work which he has done on the matter over the past few years but on his good fortune in securing a place early in today's series of debates. Incidentally, I should congratulate him also because this has been a lucky day for the Douglases, since I understand that "Black Douglas" won the 4.15 at Ayr. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was backing his good fortune. I congratulate him also on the way in which he introduced the debate, setting what I regard as just the tone which the situation demands.
A host of questions has been put to me, and I shall answer as many as I can, but, before doing so, I wish to set the background. It should be emphasised that the policy pursued by the present Government, and by the previous Government, too, has been to do everything possible to ensure that exploration and


exploitation of the United Kingdom Continental Shelf is made as quickly as possible. That has been the overriding principle behind the actions of both Governments, and it has been based, broadly speaking, on a reliance on private enterprise, the majority of which has come from international oil companies, though at the same time there has been considerable public sector involvement. As a result, the financial risk has been spread, enabling a much larger total exploration effort to be made.
The financial capital required could not have been found by the Government on their own without considerable strain or without cutting other public sector financing. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) nodding at that, for it has been a major contention which has not always been accepted by some people considering this matter outside the house.
The policy has been remarkably successful in securing quick exploration, especially for gas, and in finding oil where, 10 years ago, hardly anyone believed an oil field could possibly exist. Already, 90 per cent. of the country's gas supply comes from the United Kingdom shelf. Oil, too, is being explored for with commendable skill and efficiency.
I endorse the tribute which the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire paid to those who work in the North Sea on rigs and on pipeline work. I do not know how many hon. Members have been to a North Sea rig. Usually, one goes only on days when the weather is fairly good and the helicopter service can be regarded as ultra-safe, but anyone who has been there in the midst of a storm knows what an unpleasant experience it can be. For the type of work which they do, in cramped conditions and all sorts of weather, the men concerned deserve considerable praise. I am delighted that that praise was given at the start of the debate, and I add to it the Government's praise as well.
As regards oil, the mood is optimistic, though I must say that I do not go along with some of the figures which have been flashed about in the Press, or even used in some of our debates, mainly because many more wells have to be drilled to establish the potential of the general area

of the oil finds. The companies have already spent over £300 million, the vast majority of which has gone on gas, but another £200 million is already scheduled and the greater part of this will go on oil. In addition, there are plans to spend another £1,500 million on oil development.
The licensing terms are always under review, and the Government have an open mind about the future of licensing. I was asked why the discretionary method had been used throughout, and why only 15 licences were put up for auction during the last round. One of the basic reasons for the discretionary method of licensing is that the actual and potential contribution of the applicants to the United Kingdom economy has always been one of the criteria used in awarding licences.
Some hon. Members opposite are caught in a dilemma here, for they have argued that the Government should take a greater degree of control in ensuring that companies look to the development of British industry in their necessary expenditure backing up the work which they do in the North Sea, yet at the same time they have advocated a great measure of revenue for the Exchequer by going to the auction method.
With the auction method, one has precious little control over what can be done on the granting of the type of licence because once it has been let, if such conditions as can be stipulated in the terms—this is the suggestion—are not fulfilled, one can do virtually nothing about it.
Our aim is to ensure on the basis of past performance—we have been able to do it so far—that the actual and potential contribution of applicants to the United Kingdom economy shall be taken as one of the criteria. This is not something done just by this Government, or something which we have brought in as a change from the practice of the previous Government. The only change which we have made has been in relation to public sector participation. We have not altered this aspect of licensing which has run through the whole field of discretionary licensing methods from the word "Go".

Mr. Douglas: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to say that the people who got the


15 blocks got them on conditions less onerous than those applied to other companies, that they did not have to submit work programmes?

Mr. Emery: I am not saying that. The position is that we have carried out this round of auctioning to gain the necessary experience of the problems that are being posed. Can one ensure that the necessary work programmes are carried out by those who have obtained the licences by auction? The hon. Gentleman is correct in one respect, namely, that in the 15 licences which were put up for auction we attempted to have both the kind of block that was very good and certain blocks which, if I may so put it, were highly speculative. We were trying to get experience right across the field.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I are all concerned to ensure that there is a proper return to the Treasury, at the same time as ensuring that there is no lessening of the momentum of exploration and development. These projects have been carried through at a pace which no one initially believed was possible.
This counters the argument of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) who said that the Government were slow in recognising the economic effects and the manpower aspects of the development of North Sea oil. It is balderdash to say that because, if one considers the level of production, the number of wells that have been drilled and the encouragement that has been given to investment, one realises that there has been more success and greater returns in this small area of the world than in any other fields which anybody has been able to name to me, and I speak with a little experience in this matter.
The Government realise that the discovery of oil and gas on the Continental Shelf will produce immense benefits to the United Kingdom. To this end they are determined to ensure that the whole country—and this includes Scotland—enjoys the maximum of benefit. How does one assess this benefit? Oil accounts for nearly half of our energy requirement, nearly all of which is met from products imported from the Middle East.

By 1980, United Kingdom North Sea oil could provide up to half our oil requirements, and this could mean up to one-quarter of our total energy requirement. In addition, the supply of North Sea gas could mean that more than 40 per cent. of our energy requirements were coming from the North Sea. Thus, by 1980 we could well be making foreign exchange savings of several hundreds of millions of pounds. Secondly, there will be substantial revenues to the Exchequer. By 1980, royalties alone should provide £100 million a year, assuming that there is no increase in oil prices. But that assumption is not realistic, so the figure will be appreciably more than that.
Thirdly, the effect on industry and employment, especially in Scotland in the regions, will be considerable. I have been asked for specific figures. It is important to realise that already the number of jobs created or in prospect in Scotland because of North Sea oil is more than 7,500, and I believe that this figure will continue to increase.
I have said before, but I am more than willing to go on repeating, that the Government will watch to see that British firms are given a full and fair opportunity to compete for the supply of materials and equipment. It is for this reason that I wanted to highlight the need for applications to be considered on the basis of the contribution which the successful applicant can make to the economy of the United Kingdom. That factor must be specifically considered in the next round of licensing.
The IMEG report is to be submitted this autumn, and I think most hon. Members know that we shall re-examine the whole question of how British industry, and Scottish industry, can obtain greater benefits from North Sea developments which the analysis has thrown up. In other words, we shall want to ensure that areas of industrial development which have not been recognised by industrialists are brought to their attention and that we do whatever is possible to ensure that British industry is given the opportunity to provide what is needed.

Mr. Buchan: This is crucial. Earlier in his speech the hon. Gentleman said that it was impossible to lay down conditions because there was no means of carrying them out. He said that when he


departed from his brief. He has now returned to it and said that one criterion is the benefit to the economy. If that is correct, what conditions do the Government lay down? We have never before been told about this. How is the matter controlled?

Mr. Emery: I am sorry that I gave way and enabled the hon. Gentleman to make that intervention, because he is trying to twist my words. I did not say, nor did I imply—and the hon. Gentleman can check this in HANSARD—that it was impossible to control. I did not use that word, and he knows that I did not. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman wishes to put that statement into my mouth. I have said all along that there are great difficulties in controlling the matter, and the hon. Gentleman's Government realised that. Why will he not admit it? His right hon. Friends realised that when they were members of the previous Administration, and there is nothing strange about it. We ought not to get into a party political discussion over this matter, because it was accepted by both sides when the previous Government were in office.

Mr. Bruce Millan: Mr. Bruce Millan (Glasgow, Craigton) rose—

Mr. Emery: I am sorry, but Mr. Speaker specifically requested us to try to limit each debate to an hour. I have a number of questions to answer from hon. Members who have been here for the whole of the debate. If I give way to the hon. Gentleman I shall not be able properly to perform my job as the Government spokesman responsible for answering the debate.
The hon. Member for East Stirlingshire asked about the codes of practice and the safety position in the North Sea. Here I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) who has been most helpful in putting his experience at the disposal of the Department. The codes of practice and the safety regulations are being dealt with by myself as a matter of urgency, and I have great hopes of being able to get these out within the foreseeable future. In other words, we are not postponing the matter for reasons other than ensuring that we have the right consultations with the

people who have the necessary experience, such as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East.
The hon. Gentleman then raised the issue of the better presentation of information. During the debate on 27th July my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry said:
I am not convinced that a White Paper is necessarily appropriate. However, I think that the House is entitled to a better presentation of the information available than has so far been given …—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1972; Vol. 841, c. 2191.]
Even before that statement was made, we had been looking into the manner in which this could be done. We believe that it probably needs to be done on an annual basis. We are investigating whether it can be done in the annual report. There is the statutory requirement to produce a report on the continental shelf. I should welcome the application by the hon. Gentleman for more information. The Government agree with him, and we are trying to find the best way in which that can be done.
I was then asked about public participation and whether blocks should be reserved for a State oil company. I can give a categorical assurance that there is no intention of the present Government's creating a United Kingdom State oil company. I do not think that many people will be surprised at that statement.
I return to the remarks of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West. I believe that he is misleading the House, because the Norwegian Government have not taken up any of their options. They are operating at a lower licensing rate than we are. The proof that our policy will have no effect on international participation is in the facts. The amount of exploration, the amount of work done on the Norwegian side of the median line in the continental shelf has been much less than that done on the United Kingdom side.
I believe that the statements in the Labour Party policy document are a great disservice to both Scotland and the country in scaring away the sort of investment we should want. That is the only major political fact that I want to inject into the debate.
I fully understood the request of the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) that mathematical models or techniques


should be used in an assessment of the total energy policy. He suggests that the assessment should be published. One of the troubles is that it is meaningful only if it is done properly in a rolling five-year forecasting programme. A problem in politics is that the moment any figure is published in a forecast it is held to be gospel. It is believed that the Government are held to the forecast as an absolute fact. Both sides have made great political play, and no doubt will continue to do so, of forecast figures having to be altered. If we could get away from that attitude, I believe that all Governments would find it much easier to run into the sort of five-year rolling forecasting which large companies must do as their normal operating procedure. I predicted at some of my speeches at the time of the Dick Marsh fuel policy exactly what is now being shown to be true, that there was a major underestimation of oil consumption and that we were over-emphasising the national energy policy and the return we would get from the estimates.
The employment opportunities that it is said would become more evident if we were publishing the projected fuel policy do not necessarily have to come into that kind of projection. That is why the Government have decided to have a consultants' report on the employment opportunities. We are keeping the opportunities uppermost in our thinking, to try to ensure that they can be brought home to industry. It was nearly suggested in the debate that the Government can all but make the oil companies place their business in the United Kingdom. We can do that only if the Government create the background for British firms to compete successfully against other industries in the world. Only by getting the oil companies, and those contracting to it, to work with British industry as they have done in the past and as they are doing now, and by getting the right co-operation from industry and the trade unions. [An HON. MEMBER: Come off it."] One of the reasons why we have made only half the 18 moveable rigs being used on our side of the continental shelf is that when the first four orders went to the John Brown yard they were so late in delivery, and such a problem was caused by labour disputes, that much of the industry has not wanted to come

back. That is the lesson which must be learned. It is not a party political lesson, but a lesson about the economy. If delivery dates and prices are not met, the orders will not be placed by any company here in Britain. Let us all realise these facts, without trying to defend inefficient management—at times there certainly is that—or trade union practices which in our hearts we all know to be indefensible.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I am sorry to interrupt him, but can he explain, against the background of fairness which he has displayed, the British Steel Corporation's position in tendering for only 40 per cent. of the platform steel required to build the oil rigs to which he has referred?

Mr. Emery: I shall be quite frank with the hon. Gentleman. I do not know the exact reasons. They are obviously mainly internal management reasons. So that I can give a full and complete answer, as I always try to do, I shall take up the hon. Gentleman's point and write to him about it.
I come to the speech of the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who was able to work into the debate what we all know to be his great love. He was very generous when he said that the North Sea was indeed the wealth of the nation. I am glad that he is willing readily to accept that. I also accept his view that any fossil fuel must be a wasting asset. We realise that, and the Government are very cognisant of what has taken place quite recently in the United States, where particular attention has been paid to the coal industry and the need for the American nation, because of its possible reliance on imported fuel, having to return to the coal industry in a way which many people would not have expected years ago. I am delighted to make clear to the hon. Gentleman that coal has a large and vital part to play in the total energy scene of this country for many years to come.
The Government intend to see that the industry is in fettle to be able to meet those specific demands. In summing up, I hope that hon. Gentlemen will realise that. I am sorry; I have left out one point about the environment which was


raised by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). Of course we realise the problems. Pipelining has now reached the stage where, on the whole, the techniques used mean that there is very little effect on total landscaping. In the same way, by modern techniques the position with the siting of plant is more and more a matter being dealt with most thoroughly by the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs at the Scottish Office who deals also with harbour problems. I know that he is concerned about this, and the whole question of the co-operation between the Scottish Office and the Department of Trade and Industry is illustrated by his attendance today and by the fact that I am to attend the joint standing conference early in October.
At that time I intend to make a tour not only to see the environmental problems but to see some of Scottish industry and to discover whether there are things which the Department can do to ensure that job opportunities are created.
I hope that we have been able to give certain assurances to all British industry to show that the Government realise the massive potential that exists beneath the North Sea. We are determined to bring these benefits to the industry of this country, to the people—so that they may benefit from the products—and to the work-force so that it may benefit from the employment opportunities created.

SINGLE HOMELESS PEOPLE

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I want to ask the Government to take urgent action in a number of directions to help what is certainly the most distressed and under-privileged group in the community, the single homeless people. I have been helped in raising this by two reports just published, one of them the final report from the Joint Working Party on Homelessness in London produced by the Department of Health and Social Security and the other the report issued on the single homeless person produced through the Mind Campaign of the National Association for Mental Health.
Who are the people about whom I wish the Government to take action?

These are people who are either without families or are cut off from their families, who have no settled home. Many are mentally sick or handicapped, many have recently been in prison. They are rootless, homeless and usually utterly miserable. Many have accommodation in common lodging houses, many are in overnight hostels provided by voluntary organisations. Many too are in Camberwell reception centre, which I visited today, and other Government centres of the same kind.
Several hundred sleep rough in half a dozen well-known places in London—under the bridge at Charing Cross, in Embankment Gardens, Temple Gardens, under the arches at Waterloo Station and behind the Strand Palace where the warm air rises through the grill on to the pavement. Studies suggest that, if we take Camberwell Centre as our starting point, one-third of the occupants have been patients in mental hospitals at one time or another. Dr. Tidmarsh of the Social Psychiatry Unit now doing research at Camberwell recently said that since 25 per cent. of the men there were mentally disordered and another 25 per cent. were alcoholics, "There are more people going through Camberwell who are mentally ill than there are going through an average mental hospital."
Professor Greve, in his well known study of this problem, said of the homeless men now in prison on short sentences that more than half "revealed heavy drinking, alcoholism, habitual use of drugs, psychiatric disturbances and severe personality disorders". As a result of new tremendous and more liberal policies in our mental hospitals there has been a great increase in the number of voluntary admissions and in the number of discharges. Nowadays 185,000 patients are discharged each year; nine-tenths of patients come out within one year and 55 per cent. come out within six weeks. This discharging from mental hospitals is admirable in itself and is something which all of us have supported and for which many of us have campaigned and continue to campaign. It is however admirable only if, when these patients come out, they get proper support and are properly looked after.
There is nothing gained if we empty a mental hospital bed simply to fill a place under Charing Cross railway bridge.


This is an extremely urgent, important and growing problem. Most of the 185,000 have good prospects of getting well again and of being re-settled and re-established. Many have families who help them get back to normal life. Getting a job is difficult but many of them succeed. Many get good support in the community through case-work and industrial training and rehabilitation at day centres and so on.
Far too many do not get this kind of welcome back. Far too many people are floating between hospital, reception centres and prison and back to hostel and then to hospital. This is the problem I want to raise tonight. It is difficult to find out exactly how big the problem is because, like all neglected problems, there are no statistics. The last official survey on the problem was as long ago as 1965. There is an urgent need for a new, comprehensive official survey of the problem. How many people are we dealing with, from where have they come and what is their problem? These are facts which we urgently need to know.
For what it is worth the last official survey in 1965 showed that, at 31st December, 985 men and women were sleeping rough, 1,846 were in Government reception centres and 28,789 were in common lodging houses, a total of 31,520. Unfortunately the evidence is that the size of the problem is much greater today. As the Salvation Army, the Church Army or any of those voluntary organisations and they will say that their resources are taxed to the limit. The estimate made by St. Mungo's Community, one of the voluntary organisations, is that the number of people sleeping rough in the greater London area doubled between September, 1969, and September, 1971, when the survey was made. Recent responsible estimates suggest that we are dealing with about 50,000 of our fellow citizens.
With this disturbing increase in the size of the problem there is actually a decrease in the available accommodation. This may sound strange at first sight, but for rather strange reasons accommodation which was previously suitable and available for these people has simply disappeared. Consider the Rowton House accommodation. That used to be a great standby but if it is upgraded and used for normal commercial purposes money

has to be made on it, and that is what has happened in a number of cases. It is very serious. I see that the number of beds available from the Rowton House people has fallen from 5,500 in 1960 to only 1,200 today. Equally, the figures for common lodging houses have gone down from 6,405 in 1962 to 4,708 in 1972.
This is the situation in London, but it also applies throughout the country. Slum clearance has reduced the amount of old private property which was suitable for low-rented accommodation. Such redevelopments have made the problem much more difficult. It has taken out the middle range of accommodation which is a stage up from the reception centre and a stage down from the accommodation which is perhaps more amenable but the rents for which cannot be afforded by the people I am talking about.
What needs to be done? I have a number of points to put to the Minister and I ask that they should be considered. First, we must pin overall responsibility for this problem on a single authority. There are too many fingers in the pie and there is no clear line of definition of responsibility. Obviously the buck should stay with the Department of Health and Social Security. That is where overall responsibility for the problem should rest. At the moment we have the Home Office dealing with the psychiatric and medical care and after care of prisoners. The Department of the Environment deals with housing. The Department of Employment is supposed to find jobs for people. Local authorities are responsible for Part III accommodation. In fact, the position of local authorities is anomalous because they are supposed to deal with local people and local issues, whereas by definition the people I am talking about are not local; they are extremely mobile and go not only from borough to borough in London but from city to city.
The time has come to establish under the Department of Health and Social Security a commission with the single task of dealing with the problem of homeless single people. It is time that the whole prison medical service came under the National Health Service and the Department of Health and Social Security. Certainly the psychiatric treatment of people about to be released who


came homeless into prison and go out homeless should come under the Department of Health and Social Security. The after care of such prisoners should also be the responsibility of that Department. We need a common grants policy for hostels. The Government give after care grants to ex-prisoners which are not available to patients coming out of mental hospital. This is an anomaly which could be cleared up if a single Ministry instead of several was responsible. I should like to see set up a commission which was held accountable for tackling this problem, and a national plan to get on top of it.
The main question which such a commission should consider is accommodation. This is the key. There is not one front but a number of fronts on which we must advance—for example, Government reception centres. We shall not get rid of them in a hurry. They need expansion and more social workers and resettlement and rehabilitation officers attached to them. That is certainly true of the Camberwell reception centre, which carries an enormous responsibility. It is an appalling building. I do not know where in Britain I have seen such an appalling structure. It would be tempting to say, "Knock it down", but we cannot afford to do that until other provision is made for the 8,000 single homeless people who go through the centre in a year. Other facilities must be made available so that this problem can be solved. We must have a proper, custom-built reception centre at Camberwell.
I should like in passing to pay tribute to the work done at Camberwell. It is not an easy job. I was very impressed by the staff. They are professionals, but they all volunteer to work at the centre. This is the way to get the best people for the job. It is a sure fire winner if professionals volunteer for a difficult and challenging job. This is one way in which some expansion of accommodation can be achieved.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I used to work in Camberwell where this was a constant problem, because the ordinary people living in the area object most strongly to people going to the centre to which my hon. Friend has referred at about half-past one in the afternoon, sitting around and attracting

other people who are drunk or who perhaps take drugs. Therefore, other people in the area are anxious that the centre should not be there.

Mr. Mayhew: I will come later to the reaction of neighbours and local people to the siting of reception centres in their areas. There will be difficulties wherever they are put. But the Camberwell reception centre takes in 8,000 people a year. It cannot be closed down at the moment. I appreciate the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) has just made, but there are certain problems which the community must understand and live with and try to reconcile itself to. I see no prospect of moving the reception centre at Camberwell. We should create the conditions in which it can be altered. It should not be as big as it is.
I should like the Government to increase the grants which they give to the admirable voluntary organisations at work on this problem. That would be a very quick and administratively simple way of increasing the amount of accommodation. The community should be profoundly grateful to the Salvation Army, the Church Army, the St. Mungo's Community, the Simon Community, the Cyrenians, NACRO and other organisations. I also mention the National Association for Mental Health and its Mind Campaign, which is drawing attention to this problem. The Government should aim at having a common policy of grants for hostels along the lines I have suggested.
However, the most likely way of increasing accommodation is by working in co-operation with the local authorities. We recognise the problems of local authorities, such as homeless families and their waiting lists. No one can fail to see that it is a very difficult problem for local authorities to take on board responsibility for single homeless people, but I hope that the recommendations in the Minister's working party will be carefully considered and that local authorities will accept the obligation to provide accommodation for homeless single people, as they do for homeless families.
I hope that the homeless single person will be eligible for council accommodation, as homeless families are. I hope


that, above all, the local authorities will make more hostel accommodation available. They are statutorily obliged to do this, but in practice they do not provide the accommodation needed. Will local authorities review the rules about having lodgers in council houses? This is a large possible source of increased and suitable accommodation for many of the people we are discussing.
I wonder whether local authorities can do something about spreading the load. I was horrified to learn this morning that the only Part III accommodation available to the Camberwell reception centre was that provided by the Southwark Borough Council. Why only Southwark? Camberwell is infinitely the biggest reception area in Britain, and yet one borough council is supposed to provide the Part III accommodation. This is monstrous.
I ask the Minister to bring representatives of the London boroughs together and let them take half a dozen each. There must be some agreement in this matter. Otherwise, if one local authority acts to raise standards and to provide good accommodation, a flood of homeless people will be attracted to it. There must therefore be a rationing system and we must obtain the co-operation of all the London boroughs.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: I have a huge problem concerning single homeless people. There is a very active Simon Community in St. Pancras, and, having the St. Pancras main line station in my constituency, I have many other people's problems, too. Would my hon. Friend include in what he has said about local authority accommodation people who are rendered homeless by redevelopment schemes whose only problem is that they live in an area which is being redeveloped and become homeless as a result?

Mr. Mayhew: I entirely appreciate what my hon. Friend has said about the problems in his constituency, and I know very well his intimate personal interest in them. Indeed I do, but I am not talking about those who are homeless through fire, through accident, through the cause he mentioned—redevelopment. I am talking about a rather specific group of people, although those other people also are a responsibility of local authorities.
Hastening on, I come to the third thing which I should like to ask the Minister to consider very carefully, and that is the position of mental hospitals and their attitude to this problem. I have already said that on both sides of the House we have been urging mental hospitals to discharge patients wherever and whenever they can, but I think that they must be a little more cautious about discharging patients in that they should make sure that the patients have got somewhere to go and someone to look after them if they need someone to look after them.
A second thing mental hospitals must do is to stand ready to receive back from, it may be, a Government reception centre, or from a Salvation Army hostel, people who have been patients in the mental hospitals. This seems to me essential. I was distressed to learn only quite recently that London hospitals agreed to take back only people who have been their patients within the last 12 months. I do not know why they receive back only those who have been patients within the last 12 months. I would say that anybody who has spent time in a mental hospital and is known to the medical staff there should be reaccepted if he has a relapse and ought to go back. I was horrified to learn that, outside London, hospitals will not take back their own patients when they do have a relapse and find themselves in London. This is where the Minister could act through the regional hospital boards, and I hope that he will see what can be done there.
There is the whole question of more medical and social work support for the single homeless people. This is a tremendous need. There is also need for some alcoholism units, and not only in the community, but in prisons and mental hospitals. This is a tremendous part of the problem and I ask the Minister to consider that.
To end on a more hopeful note, there are experiments being made in rehabilitating and resettling people of this category and they give solid ground for hope. I am particularly impressed by one experiment being carried on in collaboration with the Camberwell reception centre. This is the Peter Bedford project, and I ask the Minister to have a look at it.
It is too early yet to assess it, for it has been going for only three years;


perhaps in another couple of years we shall see where it is leading. It is a project in which between 30 and 35 men from Camberwell, half of them paranoids and schizophrenics, and some alcoholics, have been provided with a room each in a house, with five men to a house, and each does his own cooking for himself, and has found a job which he can do. They are usually very simple jobs, cleaning jobs, something of that kind, but at least they have found jobs which men with those disabilities can do. They pay around £2·50 for a room.
So far the results have been most encouraging. Over the three years they have been showing an impressive degree of maturity. They have been no trouble at all to their neighbours or to the police, and they have held their jobs down. Apart from the two men organising the project, and whose salaries are paid by the Quaker Trust, the project is self-supporting, self-sufficient; it is not subsidised at all. It may be that this pioneering voluntary project is precisely the kind of experiment which will pave the way to massive public support when it is shown to succeed, and I ask the Minister to look at it very carefully indeed, with the possibility of helping to develop this idea to the maximum extent, because, quite apart from the narrow view of its helping to solve social problems, it is a heartening thing that men such as these, whom one could easily write off as totally unemployable and totally incapable of supporting themselves, can, if given a chance, make a real show of leading a proper, social life.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I apologise for missing the first minutes of the speech by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) because this is a subject in which I am very much interested and I should like to have heard also his opening sentences. He has raised a very important subject.
He has been chiefly concerned with single people who encounter difficulties on medical grounds or who are exprisoners—people such as that—but there are other forms of difficulty which people encounter and which are not strictly medical and which do not relate to any criminal past. People may be somewhat

inadequate in other ways and find it difficult to arrange themselves in the community. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary may know, I have a problem of this character in my own constituency. Unfortunately, these people do not seem to be anybody's business. The local authorities have their housing lists on which they give people points for various things, such as family responsibilities. Of course, single men or single women rate very low on those lists. No Minister of the Crown is directly responsible for actually housing people. It is true that we have increased the grant for hostels, but that is quite another matter from getting hostels built, and there are very few of them.
I would join the hon. Gentleman also in what he said about the work of private societies which can be very valuable indeed in this respect, but that is not only not spreading but is actually contracting, and that raises very serious problems.
We have, in addition to the medical cases, people I would describe as inadequate because they are institutionalised. They have fallen out of employment; perhaps they have gone or have been sent to a Government retraining centre. In the case of the Colnbrook hostel in my constituency they were actually directed there in the days when we had such direction. They were sent either to do specific work in the war or were sent there for training. Some of these people have been living in an industrial hostel, as it was called, for five, 10, 15, 20 years. When somebody has reached the age of about 50 or 55 and he has lived in a hospital for 15 years, he is not very fit to look after himself in the community or to find accommodation for himself anywhere. I do not know what to tell these people to do.
Again, what the hon. Gentleman said is absolutely right, that the only local authority which will look at this kind of problem is the local authority in whose area the institution is located; the other authorities around, I am afraid, say, "It is very difficult, but it is not our problem". Single people have this difficulty, either because they have medical or psychological problems or because they are—I hesitate to use the word "inadequate", which is too unkind—they have ceased to have or have never had


any degree of ability to fend for themselves, although they can hold down a job and earn a living.
For such people life in a bed-sitting room, which is the only alternative, is a fairly miserable existence. It is not an ideal way for a single man to spend the decades from 30 to 60 just living in a bed-sitting room. Such men would like a form of institutional life. They are in employment, quite well paid employment, and are capable of paying for accommodation, but these institutions simply do not exist. Here is a case where my hon. Friend might take an initiative. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has been most helpful in the Colnbrook case to which I have referred, but he has no powers and can himself do nothing. He can only invite local authorities to do something, and whether they do or do not do something is a matter over which neither he nor my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has any control.
There should be some ultimate ministerial responsibility for coping with the problem. I cannot look to any Minister of the Crown and say that he is the person who in the last resort should see that the people who are inadequate for one reason or another in the matter of finding accommodation are provided with suitable accommodation. I hope my hon. Friend will pay great attention to what the hon. Member for Woolwich, East said. There is a problem here which somebody should do something about, because it is getting worse all the time and almost everybody is saying that it is somebody else's business.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) and the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), I also believe that the problem of homelessness, as opposed to bad housing and housing shortage, in London is becoming more serious and demands a far more energetic and concerted effort by the Government and local authorities than it is getting.
I have already given to the Minister details of one recent grievous case in my constituency. On the evening of 11th July a constituent of mine called on me in the House to say that he and his wife

were threatened with eviction from their home on 20th July and that they had nowhere to go. I advised him to take legal advice on the necessity of eviction, but as the accommodation was furnished the law gave him no security. At the same time, as there were no children the family was ruled out by Wandsworth Borough Council from the offer of even temporary shelter for the homeless. On 20th July, only a few days later, my constituent's wife's body was recovered from the river, and the inquest found later that she had taken her own life. On 25th July my constituent was locked out of his home by the private landlord.
I find it appalling—and I think the Minister will agree—that such a tragedy can occur in this capital city in 1972. These events happened, even though the family had for months been in touch with the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, which had done its best so far as I can judge, and the Social Service Department and the Housing Department of Wandsworth Borough Council, which were unable to help.
It was only after the death of my constituent's wife that he, by the efforts of NACRO, a voluntary body, was found temporary lodging by the St. Mungo Community, another voluntary body. Even now, the borough council does not regard my constituent as having enough priority to justify his being rehoused in the present extreme and acute shortage of accommodation available. I think it is right that, amid so much complacency, these things should be known to the House and to the public.
There are two immediate reasons for this tragedy—first, the absence of security of tenure or proper legal protection for those in furnished accommodation; secondly, the refusal, or at least the inability, of London local authorities to give Part III accommodation to the homeless without children, whether it be a single person or, as this case, a couple. These two factors combined turned this couple into the streets without any alternative available to them. Yet both these are man-made decisions of policy which the Government and local authorities could, and in my view should, alter. I hope that the Minister is seriously considering those two possibilities.
Meanwhile, officers of the Wandsworth Borough Council inform me that the situation is growing worse because of the complex of forces and policies which are steadily aggravating the acute physical shortage of housing accommodation in London.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East referred to the Rowton Houses which were launched in Victorian times to accommodate the impoverished homeless. They are being downgraded into tourist hotels and are being used for other low priority purposes, thus reducing the accommodation available for the homeless from about 5,500 in 1960 to only 1,200 today. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that those figures are correct.
Although Rowton Houses were always commercial enterprises and not strictly charities, they nevertheless performed an invaluable function. It is a solemn thought that Victorian institutions launched with this purpose should have withered away in the 1960s without effective replacement. Can the Minister take any steps to stop this happening, or is he entirely powerless? If so, is there not an obligation on the public authorities to provide an effective substitute?
At least we welcome the fact that the Joint Working Party on Homelessness in London, sponsored by the Minister's Department, on 26th June this year issued its final report, "Homelessness in London". The working party has as its chairman an official of the Department and a number of London local authority officers as members. I understand that its positive recommendations, which are practical, now have to be approved by the Department and the London Boroughs Association, and I trust that the Minister will be able to join me tonight in expressing the hope and intention that these proposals will be speedily put into effect.
The working party recommends that certain homeless families or single persons without children, including those who have lost their roof through emergencies, the elderly and the physically or mentally handicapped, should in future be given the same priority for temporary help as are families with children. That is the first indispensable condition for meeting this mounting problem.
The working party also proposes that, for single persons, the rule about council house lodgers should be reviewed; that more accommodation, including hostels or lodging houses, might be provided; that any fall in the stock of accommodation for single persons should be replaced; that hospitals should not discharge patients until they are sure of a lodging—it is strange that that has to be formally recommended in 1972; that borough councils should be given early warning of evictions by county councils and rent tribunals—

Mr. Mayhew: I am sure my right hon. Friend realises that a hospital has no power to keep a voluntary patient.

Mr. Jay: The remarkable thing is that public authorities have still not worked out a procedure for seeing that this does not happen. I do not blame the hospitals.
Finally, the working party recommends that various powers in the Department of Health and Social Security should be strengthened and that if short-term reception units are found to be necessary in any area, as in London they certainly are, they should be provided by the local authority housing departments.
All these proposals together will achieve something and they appear to me to be the least that should be done in present circumstances. But the working party repeatedly points out what we all know to be true—that more shelter for the homeless must mean less hope of rehousing for those who have already waited years on the housing list, unless the total stock of council homes is increased and increased rapidly. Every honest person knows that this is the kernel of the problem and some drastic changes of policy must be made quickly if it is to be solved.
At present the desperately needed increase in the housing pool, as the working party report calls it, is being prevented for three avoidable reasons. First, council homes and flats are now being sold to private persons, with the connivance and even active encouragement of the Government. I do not want to be controversial tonight—indeed I want the Minister to act in this matter—but I must say that to sell council homes, with no condition of resale to councils, when


tragedies such as I have described are happening, is not merely wrong but indefensible.
Secondly, some local authorities, notably the GLC which professes an inability to rehouse urgently families in need of shelter, are at the same moment blithely and complacently, mainly through their road building departments, demolishing perfectly good dwellings. At the recent West Cross Route public inquiry the GLC admitted that if its plans went forward it would destroy about 1,500 homes, accommodation for about 4.000 people, in order to build 2⅓ miles of motorway in West London. The GLC proposes this idea at a moment when the Minister's own working party says that it "recognises the impracticability" of local authorities finding shelter for all families in London "in present housing circumstances". If this demolition madness goes on and at the present rate—and the GLC proposes even to increase it—the problem neither of the homeless nor of the grievously badly housed in London has any chance of being solved for many years ahead. I believe that we should stop all demolition of existing homes for non-housing purposes until the shortage in London is overcome.
Thirdly, the Government and some local authorities are still not tackling the major problem of building new homes at the fastest rate possible with anything like the energy, determination and drive that is needed. This should be one of the two or three most urgent tasks of the Government, with the highest priority and strongest organisation behind it. Yet it so happens that in the same week in which I have had to protest to the GLC about a family which has waited in bad conditions for over 2½ years for rehousing, I also have had to protest that the largest housing site in my constituency available in the last 20 years, which would provide over 400 homes for about 1,500 people and which was sold to the GLC for housing ten years ago, is still lying idle and no building operations are taking place. It is surely incredible that, even allowing for all sorts of special factors in that case, the local authority, faced with the most acute of all our social problems, should allow this kind of thing to happen.
I say this not because I take any pleasure in criticising any local administration, but because I want to get something done to see that these delays do not occur. Unhappily, since the ill-starred London Government Act, which has been responsible for the piecemeal organisation of the problem of the homeless, the GLC seems to have ceased to be a real housing department in the sense of caring first and foremost about solving the housing problem.
Therefore, if the Government mean business and have taken to heart what is happening—and I hope that they will do so after this debate—they will not merely push forward the proposals of the working party but will remove and reverse all these three main brakes on the potential growth of the local authority housing pool since that alone can overcome this great and growing evil. I hope that the Minister tonight will acknowledge realistically the facts as they are, will put all prejudices aside and will tackle the problem as it needs and deserves to be tackled.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. William Hamling: I wish to refer to some of the general questions relating to the subject of homelessness in London, but there is one particular aspect of the problem with which I should like to deal. I wish to mention the situation faced by the single woman who cares for a relative, perhaps a parent, when the parent who is the tenant of the house dies. Following such an occurrence the single woman often finds herself in difficulties. I hope that we may be given some general rule that in such cases the daughter who is liable to become homeless, and in some cases is made homeless, can be protected. I know that my hon. Friend is interested in this aspect of the subject and I also know that the Under-Secretary of State takes a personal interest in it.

Mr. Ronald Brown: My hon. Friend will be aware that the GLC policy even in redevelopment areas is that in the case of the single person it will do everything other than to rehouse that single person, since it argues that such a person should be responsible for his or her own home

Mr. Hamling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that matter. I am seeking to emphasise what often happens to the daughter who is often elderly. In a great many cases she may have given up many years of her life, and very often has given up her employment, to care for her mother or father, or both. Such a woman in her declining years may well face the danger of being made homeless and of having no relative to look after her in her time of need. I believe it is our job in this House to intervene to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
I wish to refer to some of the general economic and social problems which affect my part of South-East London. I know that the Minister may be in some difficulty in replying to these points, but I gave notice that I would raise them and I shall understand if he cannot tonight reply directly to my points. I know that with his usual courtesy he will draw them to the attention of one or other of his governmental colleagues.
Particularly relevant to the general problem of homelessness is the whole problem of unemployment, which is a very pressing problem in my part of London. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), who is my Member of Parliament, mentioned this matter and it gives cause for deep concern. I live in my hon. Friend's constituency and we share this problem as one which is of mutual concern. I know that other hon. Members who represent South-East London constituencies are concerned too.
We have faced a long-term change in the pattern of employment in our part of London. We have had very large-scale redundancies in the last few years, major redundancies involving many thousands of people and affecting many homes. There is a major decline in dock transport in London. These are matters of topical concern and there are aspects of this that do, perhaps, receive attention in the House. But I suggest that some of the more human aspects of these secular changes in employment are overlooked.
It may well be that the dock areas, as we have traditionally known them in London, are becoming derelict and will all become derelict in a short period,

with large-scale redundancies among dockers and catastrophic falls in income and, therefore, in purchasing power, with all that this means in its effects on dock areas in London. It may well be that the Thames, as we have known it all our lives, will become a dead river. I suggest that this need not be and that possibly there are new ways in which the river could be used, particularly for containerised traffic down to Tilbury, and that we might see again the real emergence of the Thames barge as a necessary and useful part of transport in London. This might help to relieve our overcrowded roads in South-East London from the burden of the heavy lorries that now trundle along to the danger of life and limb and cause a tremendous amount of inconvenience and pollution.
One of the questions that has exercised our minds is where all these men and women who are being made redundant are to find work. It has been suggested that they might find alternative work in the service industries. But many of the people concerned have no particular skills in that direction. They have traditional skills. Some are skilled engineers, whose skill is being wasted in this way. On behalf of our people, we have asked that methods should be found of providing alternative work which will use the existing skills of these people.
This also raises another problem which directly bears on the question of homelessness in as much as that arises from poverty—and this is very relevant—and that is the problem of low wages. Even when people who have been made redundant in South-East London get alternative jobs, they are compelled to accept those jobs at much lower pay than that to which they have been accustomed. I think of a toolmaker who lives in my borough who has had two major redundancies in the last eight years. He is now back working at his craft inside the old Arsenal wall, but at a wage which means that he is £5 a week worse off than he would have been had he not had those two redundancies. That is only one example of a very general problem.
It seems remarkable that while prices soar, especially the prices of land and houses, the aggregate disposal income of Londoners is falling relative to the rest of the region because of these major industrial changes. When wages fall in


this way and when the problem arises of a decline in some of the traditional industries of London, the incentive to invest in retail, professional or leisure services declines as well.
I have mentioned the very high cost of houses and land. One of the significant aspects of this decline in industry in South-East London is the pressure of rents and living costs. Because of high costs, many of the new properties we have built in South-East London in recent years are at very high rents. Two cases came to my notice in the last week of people living in council flats and paying more than £9 a week in rent. Two young wives came to see me about this particular problem. Under the pressure of this very high rent, one family has already broken up and one of the women in question is homeless now. The other family is threatened by the same sort of pressure. The husband works in Enfield in North London and comes home to Woolwich every night. His take-home pay is £22 a week and he pays £9-odd in rent. Poverty faces that family; possibly a break-up in the family as well.
This is a problem which has become more and more general. Redundancy means that people have to find jobs elsewhere and that they have to accept jobs at much lower wages than those to which they have become accustomed; there is poverty as a result. Increasingly, people in this situation can no longer afford to live in London. Young working-class families cannot afford to buy houses in London when receiving the sort of salaries that they do. We face a declining population. We face especially a decline in the proportion of people of working age in our population, and this has effects regarding poverty.
One of the irrelevancies of this situation is the Government's Housing Finance Act. I should not really call it an irrelevance; I should call it an Act which will work to make the problem worse. The average rent in London, according to the last figure I have, for April, 1971, is £3·37. For the rest of England and Wales it is £2·33. So in London we have much higher rents than in the rest of England and Wales. As to what these rents are today, who can hazard a guess? As to what they will be in three, four or five years' time, as a result of the opera-

tion of the Housing Finance Act, who can say? We all know that the situation will get far worse. We know that rents for new flats and houses are even greater than the average of £3·37. I mentioned local authority flats in my borough at more than £9 a week. In Thamesmead people are paying £12 a week for working-class flats.
I will not speak about the ridiculous stories one reads in the Evening News of penthouse flats in the Barbican at £90 a week. They are too ridiculous to quote in this debate. But ordinary working class flats now being built in my borough are beyond the capacity of the people there to afford. What will happen to them? Who can afford to live in places like Greenwich if this situation continues? What happens if subsidies are reduced globally still further? Will councils be able to continue to build? I have grave doubts whether they will be able to continue to build in that sort of situation. It may be that as a result partly of the Housing Finance Act and partly of the pressure of costs, we shall see an end to council building programmes in London.
The question then arises: where are the poor to live under the pressure of the Housing Finance Act? The answer is: in the old council estates. We shall see a concentration of the socially disadvantaged in the old council estates. This, as my hon. Friend said in opening the debate, is significant. There is tremendous pressure on small, poor areas in trying to cope with the problems of the socially disadvantaged. We sometimes refer to problem families. It may be that, particularly as a result of the operation of the Housing Finance Act, we shall see created in my borough and in other boroughs in London ghettos of the poorest people who cannot face life with any degree of optimism, unemployment and poverty being their general lot.

Mr. Ronald Brown: This is one of the policies of the GLC. There are such ghettos in my constituency. There are many urgent cases of people who ought to be transferred from those ghettos, but the council will not transfer them to the kind of places they ought to have because the places in which they now live cannot be relet. Therefore, these people are kept there even though they have medical priority for being moved.

Mr. Hamling: And, as my hon. Friend knows very well, these people cannot afford the rents in the new area. I can think of parts of my borough where this situation exists. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that my borough is much better off than his in this respect. In other parts of London—Tower Hamlets, Bethnal Green and St. Pancras—the problems are even worse than in the London Borough of Greenwich.

Mr. Stallard: I should like to bring my hon. Friend back to the position of the single homeless person in that situation. My hon. Friend has spoken about poor and problem families. Does he accept that this makes the position of single homeless people much worse, because in many cases they have no entitlement to the kind of accommodation my hon. Friend has described?

Mr. Hamling: Of course, and particularly the single person families. This raises some of the questions with which the Minister is familiar arising from our recent debate on the Finance Bill when I specifically referred to some of the problems of low income affecting single person families. My hon. Friend mentioned entitlement. It is not only entitlement. These people do not receive the incomes to enable them to deal with the family problems they have to face.
It may be that as a result of this general policy we shall see the growth of social polarisation of a kind with which we have not been familiar in London since the days of Charles Booth some 70 years ago. Most of us here are too young to recall that era, but in our studies of the social history of London we are only too familiar with the general problems of poverty in London. I see these problems staring us in the face again in the next few years.
This social and economic change has its effects on older working class people, especially those who are made redundant. They cannot get new jobs. They are slung out of work, perhaps at the age of 55, so they cannot immediately go on pension. What do they face? They face possibly 10, 15 or 20 years of grinding poverty. The hopelessness that that engenders is familiar to all who are concerned with the problems of redundancy. These are the new poor. One of the

great consequences of these matters is that we have increased pressure on welfare services, especially those run by local authorities. We have declining purchasing power and declining revenue from the rates. With that decline, the possibility of local authorities meeting the renewed and extra claims of social welfare is made less possible.
Therefore, we must face declining standards of public service in the London social services. That is a matter which I am sure the Minister must have very much in mind in the next few years. We have a declining standard of public transport and social decay. We have the possibility of renewing old schools made less possible if the local authorities have reduced revenues. What possibility is there of renewing or improving our hospitals and public health services if we face that kind of decline? Our social capital must decay.
That is the story of the North, as I remember it in my youth, in places like Liverpool and Wigan. Where there is unemployment there are declining incomes. Where there is increasing poverty there is a decline in the standards of social capital. What incentive is there for people to establish new enterprises in such areas in the face of that general social decline? We face a declining population, declining industry and an ageing population. We shall see the creation of new industrial slums, especially in dock areas. We shall see in the old LCC area in the next few years the growth of huge concentrations of socially disadvantaged people.
At the same time, we have many other presures on our social amenities and our green belt. We have the coming of the motorway with all that that involves in the destruction of our social amenities and social capital. Local councils, faced with this poverty, cannot afford to pay the price of the preservation of our amenities. We see the railway arches of the 19th century being replaced with the motorway arches of 20th century London. That is how the North declined. Poverty bred poor public services which bred poor social capital, which provided major disincentives to enterprise and new employment. It is a black picture which I paint of the future of London and it is one to which I hope the Government will pay attention.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: It is not likely to be often that the three hon. Members who represent the borough of Greenwich will speak in the same debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) on introducing this debate, on what he said about the problems of the mentally ill and mentally handicapped, and, as I am sure the House recognises, on the important work which he does as Chairman of the National Association for Mental Health. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) was able to discuss the problems of the south east of London which are of increasing concern to all three hon. Members for the borough of Greenwich.
I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West said when comparing the situation in the North, which he knows well, with the situation which is beginning to develop in certain parts of London and which gives us great cause for concern. We were able to discuss some of these problems with the Minister for Industry when he received a deputation on Monday.
I hope that the Government will see that something positive and practical is done to improve opportunities for people living in that part of London and also try to improve the environment in which people find themselves living. When we are discussing the problems of homelessness of single people, or, indeed, of families, we are not merely talking about problems of accommodation. Everyone knows that the probems of accommodation in parts of London are extremely serious; although they are not as serious in the borough of Greenwich, we do have them there. When one is talking about the problems of the single homeless person one is talking very often about someone who, for some reason or another, is separated from all that all of us know a home can mean—more than mere accommodation, it means a kind of helpful supportive assistance which a family can give.
I want to develop the subject of the debate a little further than it has been developed so far by discussing a particular problem, but before doing so I strongly support what has been said about the need for the Government to try to co-ordinate in one Department the measures

to counter the various problems with which the debate is dealing. The problem I want to discuss, for example, is shared between several Departments and therefore does not receive the amount of attention it deserves. Admittedly, something is being done, but nothing like enough.
The particular problem of homelessness of single people which I want to introduce is that of the young black person aged probably 16, 17 or 18. I believe it very important that we should understand his or her background in order to understand why it is that in London and, no doubt, in other major cities some hundreds of black youngsters are roaming the streets, sleeping rough, very often at odds with their own families, usually unemployed and also most likely, and very often for the reasons I have given, feeling at odds with society. This minority in our population is a potential danger both to itself and to society as a whole. There is no argument for complacency about this problem. It has existed for some years and only recently has it been recognised. In order to understand why youngsters in their late teens are reduced to this kind of circumstance, it is important to try to understand the background which led to their condition.
Many of them, I guess, were born in the West Indies. Their father preceded them in arrival here, perhaps arriving in the late 1950s or early 1960s before the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, reduced the flow of heads of families to the country to a mere trickle. After the father had arrived and secured a job and perhaps some accommodation, he would send for his wife, and then later, when he perhaps was able to do so and his income was sufficient, he would send for the sons and daughters whom he had left at home in the island from which he originated.
Incidentally, I think it important that the House should also recognise that the father and mother when they came to this country were often shocked by the standard of behaviour and by the public morals they discovered—shocked because West Indian youngsters at school are taught to believe in Britain as an ideal kind of society. Arriving here, they discovered that Britain has changed from the ideal society which they thought


existed and which possibly never did exist at all.
Secondly, the parents have inherited from the society from which they have come Victorian standards of discipline towards their children. I emphasise those two points because this is the family environment in which the youngster who is sent for from Jamaica or elsewhere to come and join his family in London finds himself. He has to face parents from whom he has been separated over a period of years. He comes into a situation in which his parents, naturally—for these are the standards that they have always understood—want to apply Victorian standards of discipline.
He often has to adapt himself to younger brothers and sisters who may have been born in the period during which he was separated from his own family when he was in the Caribbean, and in addition he has to adjust himself to all the stresses and strains of urban life, which is so foreign to him. In all likelihood he is used to a rural environment and to the supportive help and advice and guidance that the extended family can give. Now he moves into an urban environment in which, in places like Notting Hill, Islington and elsewhere, there is little room to play and where in all probability his family is living in a tiny flat, certainly in inadequate accommodation, with many children. There is nowhere to go outside and he is probably ill at ease with the family that he has joined.
Then he goes to school and in all likelihood he is there labelled as educationally subnormal, if the statistics published just over a year ago about the situation of West Indian children are anything to go by. Certainly my visits to schools for the educationally subnormal have confirmed my impression that a high proportion of West Indian youngsters find their way there. He is called dull, often because no proper assessment can be made of his intelligence. Worse than that, only recently has it been recognised that youngsters coming from the Caribbean have been brought up to speak West Indian English and have great difficulty communicating in the English English that children in Britain understand. It is therefore hardly sur-

prising that they find it difficult to cope with the education provided in our schools.
So they are probably at odds with their families. They find it difficult to adapt themselves to their urban environment. They are unsuccessful at school. Then at 15 or 16 they leave school to face society.
These are the youngsters who sooner or later run up against the kinds of discipline which their parents naturally and reasonably apply, the kinds of discipline which, bearing in mind what they see round about them in terms of standards of behaviour and permissiveness, the youngsters find it difficult to accept.
Sooner or later, if my evidence is anything to go by, trouble arises within the family. There is open disobedience of parents. Sometimes the police are called in and sometimes the children's department is involved. Sometimes the youngster leaves home altogether and begins to sleep rough. He may find a place in a hostel, or live in some quarter or other, perhaps in a condemned house with a group of others in a similar situation.
That is the situation that I wanted to describe. I am convinced that neither the Government nor the local authorities are giving it the attention it deserves. I cannot estimate how many youngsters are behaving in this way. Recently it was estimated that there were about 500 of them in the Notting Hill Gate area alone. I know that there is a considerable number in Islington, and no doubt others in Brixton and other areas where families from the Caribbean have settled.
That is the problem. What can we do to try to meet it? I am glad to say that there have already been pioneering efforts which indicate the way in which a solution can be found. First, there is a need for accommodation of the kind which a hostel can provide. These youngsters are alienated from their families. They need the support which communal living can give. There are already in being several experiments which have proved successful. Incidentally, the institutions which are set up ought not to be too institutionalised. Something in the nature of a home is what is required for these youngsters if they are to adjust themselves to play a positive and successful rôle in society.
Often what they require is the help and advice of understanding and mature people of their own background who come from the Caribbean. A mature couple, a husband and wife, as wardens of this kind of hostel can so often do a lot of good to assist these youngsters in getting a job, in understanding their situation in society and getting them to accept the situation in which they are.
Local authorities on occasion are inclined not to face the problem because they are unwilling to undertake the cost which they imagine is involved. But I should like to emphasise that in a way this is a temporary problem, and what one is looking for is a temporary solution to it. Local authorities very often have large old houses in areas due for redevelopment, which can be converted into temporary hostels to provide homes for youngsters of this kind, and one or two useful jobs in this direction have been done. There is George Jackson House in Manchester, for instance, and in Camden there is Berry House which was given by the Greater London Council and provides the kind of accommodation which is needed.
In addition, black people have pioneered a number of self-help schemes themselves, one of them with the assistance of the Community Relations Commission, which have enabled youngsters to find accommodation and a helpful environment in which they can begin to take work, because unfortunately for those who are living rough the possibility of getting a job is clearly out of the question. Sometimes a hostel cannot provide all the assistance that is needed for these young people and, as a member of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, I was interested to visit the Keskidee Club in Islington, a youth club designed to provide social and comfortable amenities for West Indian people. I believe that all these things can be of assistance.
Ultimately the problem which these youngsters face is that of identity, of knowing the kinds of contribution that they can make to society as a whole. No one has bothered to tell them this so far. They have come here at the behest of their parents. Often, the education they have received is irrelevant to their needs, failing to comprehend the sort of background from which they come.
I know that teachers and educationists are beginning to think of the need for education in British schools to look much more towards the kind of multi-racial society into which we are moving. The Association of Teachers for the Education of Pupils from Overseas, among other groups, is tackling the linguistic problems which West Indian youngsters face. But I am speking about those who missed out because no attempt has been made to tackle the kind of problems which they are facing.
I well understand that the Minister cannot answer all the points which I have raised, since so many Departments are involved. The Home Office is involved, because assistance has sometimes been provided through the urban aid programme, and also because the Community Relations Commission has given grants. The Department of Education and Science is involved. So also, no doubt, is the Department of the Environment, as well as his own Department.
I hope that among the various problems affecting single homeless people we shall not overlook this one and the need for Government action at the centre and the sort of initiatives which can and should be taken by local authorities.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: Being conscious of the number of important debates yet to come and the wish of hon. Members to take part, I promise that I shall take only four or five minutes.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Hear, hear.

Mr. Stallard: I accept the implied stricture from the hon. and learned Gentleman.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) on choosing this subject after being successful in the ballot and on the way in which he introduced the debate. I align myself with much of what was said both by him and by other hon. Members. I shall not go into detail because I imagine that all hon. Members could draw examples from the cases coming to their attention each week to show the sort of hardships which single homeless people undergo. But I have a particularly heavy interest in the problem, coming as I do from St. Pancras, part of the London


Borough of Camden, where we have all the main line stations. It used to be said that the furthest distance it was possible to carry a heavy suitcase from Euston was Camden Town. Camden Town is almost in the middle of my constituency, and we have had more than our fair share. I have been there for 35 years now, and one could almost say that that was how I arrived in London, as part of the general problem.
The problems which prevailed when I was a young man in the North are now becoming more and more prevalent in this part of the country, where they have never existed hitherto to any large extent. As unemployment increases throughout the country, the problem of the homeless single person becomes very much a London problem. I leave out of account for the moment the other problems of the homeless family, about which we could have another three or four hours of separate debate. With the heavy unemployment in the North, the North-East, Wales and elsewhere, people automatically make for the capital, as they have traditionally done, and most of the inner London boroughs are getting their share, though, as I say, Camden probably has more than most.
The problem of those who simply have nowhere to go is one of the gravest facing the inner London boroughs today. The problem of the down-and-outs, the alcoholics, the inebriates, and so on is on the increase. But there is another genuine problem, that of students, young teachers and young professional people coming to London to find accommodation. They move to the capital and other big cities to find employment because none is available in their own areas, and they run into familiar difficulties.
People who are involved in redevelopment schemes are becoming more and more of a problem, particularly in my borough, although I have no doubt that the problem exists in other boroughs, too. Many of them have no entitlement to be rehoused either by the local authority or by the county authority. They have earned no points. They have no real family problems. They have lived in furnished rooms for many years. I could quote scores of examples of people who have lived in furnished rooms for almost the whole of their working lives.

They then find themselves in difficulty because of redevelopment or compulsory purchase orders. They have no claim to be rehoused by the local authority or by the county council. Some of them are elderly retired people, and even if they are fortunate enough to be considered for rehousing they cannot contemplate paying the rent that is required.
It has been said that Rowton Houses are on the decline. I probably have one of the only two left in London, and most of us know the problems of the other one, Butterwick in Hammersmith Road. This is not the best or cheapest accommodation. It is very much a commercial proposition. The price has gone up from the days that I remember of about 1s. 6d. a night to £4·20 a week. That is the extent of the increase. Nevertheless, this type of accommodation provides a useful service, and I should be loth to see any further decline in its provision for those who need it.
Much more assistance should be given to local authorities to enable them to take a hand in providing hostels and living accommodation for the kind of people whom I have mentioned. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) said, much is being done by the voluntary associations. I am proud of the voluntary associations in my constituency and the work that they do. I could double the list given by my hon. Friend. I have all the organisations which he mentioned, plus a headquarters, an office or a branch of almost every organisation in the country.
Camden Council has done what it can to provide short life property for use by these organisations. The property is in areas which are due for development, but is not immediately required, and it is being used to great effect by the voluntary organisations to try to deal with the problems of the homeless. But this is only a temporary expedient, and we shall soon be faced with a great mass of people having to move and there will not be enough, if any, of that kind of property to house them, yet nothing is being done to replace it.
The problem is urgent and important, and I ask the Minister to take that into consideration when he replies to the debate. It may be that the time has


come to put some kind of pressure on local authorities as well as to give them assistance to provide accommodation for these people in their redevelopment schemes and in the overall planning of their areas. Such accommodation ought to be provided as a matter of deliberate policy, and not be regarded merely as an adjunct, something that is provided as an after thought. It should not be dealt with on the basis of looking round for some tatty property and saying that that will do for the time being and that the problem will disappear, that the people will move to mid-Bucks or somewhere like that. They will not. The problem will not go away. It is getting worse.
We must give local authorities the facilities and finance, as well as the directives, to include provisions in planning to deal with the problems we have outlined.
I support the excellent proposals in the working party document. I do not wish to introduce too much controversy, because so far there has not been that kind of debate here on the subject, but I have felt over the past few months that if we had expended one-tenth of the energy on this problem as we did on trying to crash through the Housing Finance Bill we could have made great strides towards its solution.
I hope that the Minister will bear in mind what I have said about redevelopment areas and the people who are having to leave their homes because of motorways and so on. It is estimated that motorway plans will force 7,000 people to leave their present homes. Many will be single, many will be retired, and many will be the kind of people I have mentioned, because of the nature of the area in which they have grown up and lived. I make an urgent and special plea for those people. I ask the Minister to give the matter his most urgent consideration and see how far he can go to implement some of the suggestions made in the debate.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) on raising the matter. We have been dealing with it for a long time. He put his finger on the problem, which

is that people do not want to know. I was on the London Boroughs Association and its predecessor when we tried desperately, throughout the London boroughs, to bring about an appreciation of the problem and agreement on what to do about it. There is no disagreement about the problem, and I suspect that there is no disagreement about its size. The disagreement comes because no one wants to be the recipient of the problem.
When I was leader of the Camberwell Council, about 15 years ago, we were trying to bring about solutions to this sort of social problem. Gordon Road, as it was then known—the name has been upgraded since, but it was and always will be only an old workhouse—was a place for the down-and-outs in the area. It was causing a big problem in the surrounding district, because the down-and-outs were coming in the late morning and sitting around in the streets and parks and even people's flats. As a result of the co-operation between the council and the then Ministry or Health agreement was reached on trying to make Gordon Road a more desirable place for people to stay in, to encourage a disciplining of the comings and goings, to obtain the co-operation of those using it, and to tell them not to misbehave themselves in the surrounding area.
One of the associated problems was drunkenness. The voluntary bodies, who were seized of the problem, set up another place not far away to try to solve the drink problem. Now there is Gordon Road and St. Giles's Vicarage, in the establishing of which I played a prominent rôle in 1958, where volunteers take those suffering from alcoholism, many of them coming from Gordon Road. A remarkable job is done in the underground room there. But the more success the volunteers achieve, the more customers they have, and the more Gordon Road is used. That is why my hon. Friend can now talk about 8,000 people going through there. I do not doubt it.
While we were looking out for the alcoholics we moved into the drug scene. Now in Gordon Road there is a place for dealing with alcoholics and there is an area to handle the drug problem. The Department said that it was a good idea to have the two places together, so now


the London Borough of Southwark has these two areas.
The Department has attempted to set up a fresh area in Guy's because it says that Southwark has it all and it might as well have one in Guy's as well. It wants to make the whole area into a problem area! There have been many discussions and arguments with the other boroughs in London on the LBA as to what help could be given to Southwark to try to share the problem. I remember the arguments we had three years ago. They were tremendous. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) was then in charge of the Department and he did a great deal to encourage us to try to set up four drug withdrawal centres. He offered money for the project and we discussed it in the LBA.
There were then 28 Conservative-controlled authorities and only four Labour-controlled, one of them being Southwark. We all agreed that we needed a drug withdrawal centre in London, we all knew the problems and we had all the figures and information. But when it came to asking the London Borough of Bromley, that was the problem. It could not exactly do that. So we thought that perhaps Redbridge would do it, but there were problems there, too. We thought it might be in the London Borough of Havering; perhaps it would like it. I remember raising the matter in the House. It did not want it. We went round all the boroughs and none of them wanted a drug withdrawal centre.
Everyone had a reason. Either it was too far from London where they could get jobs, or to near London where there were too many jobs. Everyone had a reason except the true reason, namely, that if there were such a centre in their area it would destroy the amenity. That was what they meant.
As far as I am aware that project is still awaiting the go-ahead, still waiting for a site. The Department is still offering to help and the Borough of Southwark, which I no longer represent, still has the same problem, which is growing all the time. Until the hearts of men in the local authorities have changed, until they realise that it is everyone's responsibility to share this problem and to seek

a solution, we shall go round and round for the next 20 years, as we have done to my knowledge for the last 20 years.
It is interesting to see how this has developed in my constituency. There is an old four-storey warehouse which no one wanted. It was derelict for some time until an entrepreneur decided that it was a good gig to buy this place and to use it for students to doss down in. It was what is known in my constituency as a "doss house". It was not long before the public health department was involved because there were not adequate toilet facilities, no proper facilities for washing and a whole lot of problems arose. The public health department said that if this person were to let the place for students he had to conform to certain minimum standards.
The entrepreneur decided that he could not afford to do that and still make a profit from the students. He sold it to someone else, who sold it to someone else, who finally sold it to a Birmingham engineer. He decided that he would take up the idea of giving students a hostel but would also try to cater for itinerants during the dull months when students are gainfully employed in their studies and do not want to use the doss house. He did a great deal of work. The public health department again moved in and insisted on his spending a sizeable amount of money to provide baths, showers, wash hand basins, toilets, and so on.
The itinerants became customers at once. As they did in Southwark, so they now do in my constituency. They arrive there at half past One with methylated spirits and drinks and all sorts of things and they hang around outside. I am in the picture now because my constituents complain bitterly about the conditions. I went to see the warehouse. This gentleman had bought a number of beds. Each floor was filled with old iron bedsteads which he was letting. There were amenities in terms of toilets, wash hand basins and showers in sufficient number for the people he was catering for.
I said to him, "But where do you get your customers from?". He said, "The worst people I get—the drunks, drug addicts and those who cause me considerable trouble—come from the Department of Health and Social Security". I said, "What do you mean?' He said, "I do


not mean that they are on supplementary benefit. They are sent here by the Department, which rings me up and says, 'We have a bad one here. Would you like to take him?'. I am a good-hearted and friendly person and so I say, 'Yes, send him along'. I did not mind having one or two, but now this is a regular feature. The Department rings every day and say, 'We have some more. Will you take them?'; and down they come. They are the people who are causing the trouble".
The Department knows the size of the problem. The Under-Secretary's officials are well aware that every day they have to find somewhere for these people to sleep. They know that there are very few places for them, and so they send them to places like the warehouse to which I referred, which a speculator took over and where he provided the minimum standards in order to give such people shelter. The Minister should consider whether he is satisfied that that is an appropriate way of dealing with this problem.
I urge the Minister to examine this matter and to support the view that a Department should be established which is responsible for dealing with this problem. I realise that, although he might be responsible for it, unless it is possible for local authorities to provide the land and buildings for housing such people, he will not get very much further.
I will explain another problem with which we have had to cope in London. There were a number of common lodging houses which were satisfactory for the purposes for which they are required, but some of us had rather grandiose ideas about how people should live. We were not satisfied to allow them to live in the way that they wanted. We insisted that they should live in a better style. I recall being upbraided some years ago by an older councillor who accused me of poking my nose into matter which should not worry me. She told me that people had been going to a certain place for as long as she could remember—and she was over 60 years of age. She wanted to know why I should wish to bother about people who were satisfied to pay a few pence a night and to come and go as they wished.
The result of the intervention of myself and others was that the public health authority came into the picture. It said, "You must have toilets, wash hand basins, and so on." Then the fire brigade came on the scene because by then the Government had introduced fire regulations. It said, "You have a large number of people sleeping here. Therefore, you must have adequate fire escape facilities." By the time that the authorities were satisfied about the public standards for which we all argue, they had put her out of business because she could not possibly satisfy all the requirements of the Public Health Acts and keep the house going for people who wanted nothing more than a night's bed.
That is an aspect of this problem which is seldom considered. We seem to divide it into compartments. On the one hand, we talk about the public health and fire problems, and, on the other hand, we raise the problem of single homeless people. We do not realise that what the left hand is doing is causing problems for the right hand.
I hope that we shall hear from the Minister that he will insist that it is his responsibility to take care of this group of people and that he will push the local authorities, especially those outside the inner areas of London, into accepting their part of the responsibility. They have a problem, and it has to be shared by the outer London boroughs, as indeed so many problems have, as, for instance, in terms of housing land, but co-operation specifically is needed for dealing with this problem in particular.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Frees on: Like others in the Chamber I should very much like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) upon introducing this debate. He concentrated on a particular aspect of this question of housing the single homeless persons, on an aspect of a specialised character. If I do not make many remarks on that I want him to be assured that that will certainly not be because of any lack of interest on my part, for I have a particular interest in the whole field of mental health and welfare services stretching back over a number of years, but because I want to


concentrate my remarks on the general position of homelessness amongst single people against the background of housing generally. Nevertheless, I hope that the question of care for the disabled—I use that word in the very broad sense—and who are single people will be raised again in this House so that we can get the Government and others to give effect to the many excellent recommendations being made under the general auspices of the Mind Campaign.
During my hon. Friend's remarks, and during the remarks of a number of other hon. Members, there was commendation for the most recent report, the final report of the Joint Working Party on Homelessness in London. I do not wish to knock the report. I find much of it excellent, but I must say that that part of it dealing with housing, and that is mainly the first part of the document, is unimpressive. Not that I object to what it says, but there is nothing fresh in it whatsoever. This is not necessarily a criticism of the people who participated in the work; perhaps it is a criticism of the remit they had and of the background against which they were working. Recommendations which they made so far as the homeless are concerned are good if, in some instances, put in a rather fudgey way, as I would put it; but they are not fresh, but repeats of recommendations made by other working parties. They quote one of the most important recommendations of as long ago as 1969 and from the report of the Standing Working Party on London Housing. This is a point which was touched on, quite properly and very effectively, by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), and that is the question of rehousing from redevelopment areas.
I am not very much impressed by it. For the most part it ends up with an exhortation to local authorities, but it does not make particular recommendations which are relevant to Government action. I understand the difficulty, it being a report emanating from a Department of Government, but, nevertheless, I should have thought that some reference should have been made to the Government's rôle vis-à-vis local authorities in this work. It makes reference to what local authorities may do by way of im-

proving social services, community development for certain people coming out of prison, or psychiatric treatment or mental hospitals and the like, but it makes no reference, having said that it is right that they should do certain things and be encouraged to make provision, to the rôle of central Government. I may have something to say about at least one aspect of the Department's own activities in this field which, so far as I am able to judge, has been a dismal failure. It even makes some statements which I find disturbing and questionable. For example, on page 5:
So far as housing is concerned, 86,000 units are provided at the present time by councils in London for single people many of whom are elderly. It would, therefore, appear that the need for additional housing accommodation for this particular purpose is small in relation to London's total housing stock.
I am completely baffled by that unargued statement which runs counter to all the known facts of the situation in London. It does not fit in with other observations on housing. To quote that figure and to make the specific statement that greater effort is not very important I find strange and disturbing when the total housing stock in London is diminishing.
Even more startling is the fact that there is no reference in the section dealing with accommodation for single people to the future of the Government's policy on reception centres such as Camberwell and other possible projects. Those are one or two general observations and, having been critical, I stress that I do not object to the recommendations that are made on housing; I am merely criticising points of default.
Several hon. Members have expressed concern at the lack of clear departmental responsibility between the Home Office, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of the Environment—not to speak of the regional split of functions. I agree that there is a need for clarity, but I am not sure that services for the single person should be concentrated in one Department. There needs to be a clarification of where responsibility lies, but broadly speaking my view is that the social support services should be within the ambit of the Department of Health and Social Security. The responsibility of the Home Office should be brought right across the


board, but the "bricks and mortar" of housing accommodation should clearly be the responsibility of the Department of the Environment.
Whichever way it goes, whether responsibility is concentrated in one Department or whether a clear division of function and responsibility is made, we must move rapidly away from the present fudging of responsibility for housing and accommodation between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health and Social Security. That reflects what is happening in local authorities since the advent of Seebohm. More and more authorities are switching internal responsibility for housing wholly to the housing department, rather in line with what Professor Greve recommended in his report on London homelessness, and making it clear that social service support and case work should lie not with the housing department, the education department and the social services department, or spread across all the departments, but should be concentrated in the social service department in the new set-up following Seebohm. I believe that there should be distinct responsibilities but, whichever way it goes, clarity needs to be established.
In dealing with the general situation, I should like first to state the obvious, namely, that one cannot separate the question with which we are dealing in this debate from the general housing situation in London or in any other urban area. Surprisingly, the total housing stock in London has gone down, despite the tremendous amount of building which has taken place in the last 20 years. A total of about 1¼ million homes have been built in the Greater London area since the Second World War. Some 700,000 of these have been built for owner-occupation, about 9,000 by housing associations and about 500,000 by local authorities. I am giving broad figures. There has been a certain amount of modernisation and slum clearance, but the total housing stock has decreased for reasons of demolition, road building, school projects, slum clearance and the like.
At the same time the size of households has reduced. Family households are tending increasingly to move into the suburban areas, and in the inner London area there is a much greater proportion

of single- and two-person households of all kinds. When I refer to households I am not referring to dwellings, but use the term "household" in its departmental sense.
This situation has exacerbated the housing position in central London. In inner London there has been a great growth in the number of single-person households. These are made up of students, elderly people, mobile workers, apprentices and other young people who move in from the suburbs and who share flats and houses. The sort of people involved are clerical, secretarial and young professional people of all kinds. The tendency towards the single-person household is increasing. It is producing the kind of situation which has caused so much concern to those who are closely linked with the Mind Campaign. Although the number of houses has reduced, the number of "households" has increased. This has been the underlying cause of many of the problems.
Against this background we must consider the rapidly decreasing number of rented dwellings in inner London. This is due in part to the reasons which I have outlined, such as demolition, redevelopment, road schemes, and so on, and also to the rapid increase in the number of sales in the private sector. The situation has been exacerbated by the use of rented occupation by, for example, organisations for the use of visiting businessmen, professional people and the like. This aspect is no longer incidental to the London housing scene. It has become a major characteristic of inner London and is reducing the number of family dwellings which are available to people with priority needs. This affects people who are at risk of losing their homes, or indeed who have lost their homes, and this applies to the two-person households, or the single-person households with which we have been dealing in this debate. Something has got to be done about this.
This is not the occasion on which to repeat the story of the work of either the standing working party on London housing of the Department of the Environment of the joint working party of the Department of Health and Social Security on homelessness in London. A number of suggestions have been made during the debate, and I want to make one or two specific suggestions.
There may be ideological reasons for arguing about rented housing as opposed to owner-occupation and the proportions of one as opposed to those of the other. There may be ideological reasons for arguing about whether there should be more public ownership and municipalisation or more and more private ownership and the sale of council houses. But the facts of the situation require that there be an increase in the number of rented dwellings, at reasonable rents, in inner London. That is a central fact. At present the number is going down although the need is growing, for the reasons I have briefly outlined. Therefore it is unfortunate—I say this with no disrespect—that in terms of the major part of the debate and the suggestions I shall make, a Minister from the DHSS is to carry the can in answering the debate. I hope that soon housing will become the responsibility of the Department of the Environment.

Mr. Mayhew: I find it wholly appropriate that this subject should be dealt with by the Department of Health and Social Security. My hon. Friend tempts me to reflect that some of the points he is making are not relevant to the debate.

Mr. Freeson: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, apart from himself, most hon. Members in the Chamber who have participated in the debate spoke about all kinds of homelessness and not just that of those in need of the social services. We must take this matter in context. I am speaking of the need for more housing for single people and for small households. If we cannot get that, we cannot solve the problems and the special needs to which my hon. Friend referred quite appropriately. If we cannot get the houses built for rent, we cannot house the people my hon. Friend rightly wishes to see housed. One can have a difference of view as to how to rationalise responsibility. But it would be better if housing were dealt with wholly by the Department of the Environment. There can be discussion and differences of view about this, but the matter should be clarified.
In the main, local authorities need to be backed by Government to build more rented dwellings in London to meet all kinds of need, including the needs of

single people which are not adequately being met today. Whether or not the Government accept it, it is also important that public authorities cease the indiscriminate sale of rented council accommodation. We are told that the Government have the aim of selling off 50,000 council dwellings in the coming year. They cannot at the same time say that there is a need to encourage the rented sector, for the reasons we have discussed, and then reduce it by selling off thousands of dwellings to the private market. That is what the Government are proposing, but they must change their minds about it.
Thirdly, it is important that local authorities move rapidly, particularly in inner London, into the area covered by the private sector, where we are at risk of this rented sector contracting so rapidly that it will almost cease to exist in any meaningful sense in a few years' time. This is happening all over central London and the inner suburbs. Rented accommodation is just disappearing. If it cannot be held in the private sector—no doubt for sound economic reasons from the private company's point of view—local authorities must take over this rôle, either themselves or in close co-operation with housing associations or the kind of voluntary bodies to which my hon. Friends have referred. This is essential in order to maintain a reasonable supply of rented accommodation for the kind of people we have been discussing.
Fourthly, where necessary, local authorities should be directed to ensure that everyone, including single people, displaced by clearance and redevelopment projects should be rehoused. I point out to the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) that powers exist—I will not go into the details now—for such directions to be issued.
Fifthly, it should be possible for the Minister to direct general hospitals, which are increasingly undertaking psychiatric work and treating the chronically sick and disabled—often these boundaries cross—if they have unused land available, to invite local authorities to provide housing on that land for such families and single people. Some hospitals could do this. The land is available. However, they do not. One hospital in my borough


which has been requested on a number of occasions to do this, has taken no notice of such requests.
My last point comes directly within the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Security. Much reference has been made to the Camberwell centre. It is now at least four years since the DHSS, or its predecessor, decided that the size and location of that centre should be replaced by a number of smaller centres throughout London where more rehabilitation and social casework could be undertaken for single people who had to use the centre. I do not know what the ultimate intentions for that site were. I understand it was not to be abolished entirely, but to be reduced in size and to establish a number of smaller centres throughout London.
One such centre was to be in my borough. The building that was purchased from the Territorial Army by the Department, through the agency of the old Ministry of Public Building and Works, has stood empty for four years. No action has been taken to convert it for its proposed needs, although I was informed three to four years ago that the work was in hand with architects of the then Ministry of Public Building and Works, now in the Department of the Environment.
I understand that situation obtains elsewhere in London. Some four years ago buildings and sites were obtained with the idea of embarking on the work roughly 18 months to two years later when the design work and specifications had been drawn up. However, nothing has happened and the buildings stand empty.
This is a disgrace. I said I was startled there had been no reference to this departmental policy in the joint committee's report. I hope that we shall have some indication from the Minister on this aspect. Whatever differences there may be about housing responsibilities, the integration of accommodation and individual social casework was the greatest hope one saw.
I have visited the Camberwell centre and been greatly impressed by the remarkable, sensitive and warm-hearted work that is being done by professional people in very difficult circumstances. We had hopes that there would be a move to

greater social casework being done for single people in these circumstances and that it would be undertaken in more appropriate smaller units in the various communities in London with the co-operation of local authorities. However, to this day nothing seems to have been done. I hope we shall receive an encouraging answer from the Minister on this matter.

9.45 p.m

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) for initiating what has been an extremely interesting and informative debate. The debate has been so wide that I am feeling like a one-man Government. I assure the House that the understandable concern which has run through the debate is shared by the Government, the local authorities and the voluntary organisations which are doing a good deal of valuable work, including the organisation of which the hon. Member for Woolwich, East is chairman, namely, the National Association for Mental Health, the Mind campaign and the publication which he mentioned.
Rootlessness, homelessness and the growing problems of mobility within our society, and, at the other end of the scale, the difficulties which the development bulldozer has created by redevelopment of areas where there has been natural cheap accommodation available, are problems which come together to produce a situation which is understandably causing concern. It is a good thing that the matter has been ventilated again. It is an immensely wide-ranging problem, as the debate has brought out so clearly.
For example, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) reminded the House that it is not only a problem of the single homeless; it is also a problem of the family. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) mentioned the devoted care of the single daughter who often finds herself homeless when the tenant of the household dies. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West also mentioned the wider economic and social framework against which these problems have to be seen, and which can so often trigger off problems for people who are vulnerable to the difficulties and circumstances of life.
One of the difficulties which was mentioned in many speeches, including that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), is that it appears to be nobody's business. The responsibility does not appear to be fixed in any particular area. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East made the same point when he said there should be a commission to deal with the problem of homelessness. The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) had a different view. He felt that there was something to be said for having two Departments involved. I believe that there is a great deal to be said for that approach because we are dealing with problems which concern people's whole lives and not merely one aspect of their lives.
There are, of course, many Government Departments involved. There are the local authority services and a wide range of interests. It is natural to think, as the Mind Report suggested, that by a concentration of concern in a single Ministry there would be better solutions. That, as I am sure the House will agree, would not provide a solution. What worries me about the suggestion is that although the Department of Health and Social Security clearly has the predominant rôle in care and attention, there is an important housing aspect, as the hon. Member for Willesden, East said, which belongs properly to the Department of Environment. There is a risk, if we are not careful, that to diminish the area of responsibility at the centre may be to diminish the prospect of getting better services than now exist.
What we want is not so much one Minister as a comprehensive, co-ordinated effort. From my personal involvement in the problem, I believe that the co-ordination and co-operation, both between the Government Departments concerned, and between them and the local authorities and voluntary organisations, is becoming closer and more effective than it has been hitherto. I am not saying that it is yet anything like right, but as we become more aware of the problem so the will for more effective co-operation will come increasingly to the surface.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East also mentioned the prison medical service, feeling that perhaps there is need

to bring this under one umbrella. The Butler Committee are likely to be considering this aspect of the problem and some of the considerations which he mentioned will be relevant. I am sure he will agree that it would be wise for us to await the advice of the committee before coming to a final conclusion.
The problem of homelessness covers the whole wide range of vulnerable human nature. It ranges, for example, over the difficulties of the young immigrant—the young black person who may in some cases have been born here but who in other cases has come from abroad to join the family, encountering all the difficulties mentioned by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett).
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) described himself as the Member of Parliament for the railway stations. Clearly his constituency has a concentration of those who sleep rough under the railway arches and the like.
In other words, this is a problem of wide range and of immense complexity. But there is some risk of labelling people with a recognisable symptom and trying to treat that. There is a risk of identifying people by the accommodation in which they are found. Many choose to live in lodging houses or hostels, while others in similar circumstances find not much difficulty in getting better accommodation. There is no sharp dividing, line between the many single people, or childless families for that matter, who manage perfectly well without help, and those whose situation we are debating. Rather, there is a continuum shading into inadequacy marked by various signs such as alcoholism, addiction or mental disorder, which might be either cause or effect. Then there is the question of mobility. Here, of course, the situation of students and others coming to London in ever-growing numbers emphasises the difficulty.
The local authority social service departments do not have only the problem of homelessness to deal with in these early days—and it is early days for them. It is just one of a whole series of social problems on their doorstep. I am not saying this in any way to suggest that there is no problem. I have freely admitted that there is and that it is growing.


But equally we have to recognise that we cannot expect the local authority social service departments to do everything overnight and all at once. All we can expect is that, through the guidance and help which I shall refer to, they will be able to give a growing place to the problem in the months and years ahead.
It is equally important that we do not exaggerate the extent of the problem or think that everybody who is sleeping rough would stop doing it if only there were a bed available for them. At the moment, one-quarter of the beds in Camberwell are not occupied, and there are vacancies in Rowton houses in Camden Town, Whitechapel and Vauxhall. Some of these people like sleeping rough and will go on sleeping rough whatever facilities and whatever encouragement may be provided to them to do otherwise.

Mr. Mayhew: I do not dispute that, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises that vacancies in Rowton houses and in the Camberwell Government centres today are largely seasonal. When winter comes, these places could well be completely full and there will be a crisis. I agree that we do not know how big the problem is, but will the Department have another official inquiry into the scale of the problem?

Mr. Dean: Yes, I am coming to that. I was merely saying that vacancies are available, but there are still people sleeping rough. I am not saying that there will not be severe pressure on accommodation during the winter months, for there certainly will be.
I turn from this wide-ranging problem to the information that we have about it and what we are doing to provide more information. I warmly agree with the hon. Member for Woolwich, East that we do not know anything like as much as we should about the problem. The Supplementary Benefits Commission has commissioned the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys this autumn to undertake a census of lodging houses and hostels, whether run by local authorities, voluntary bodies, such as the Salvation Army, or commercial organisations; also hostels, crypts and shelters provided by church groups and local bodies, and hostels for special groups such as alcoholics and ex-offenders. In addition

there will be interviews with samples of residents.
This information will complement information about the Supplementary Benefits Commission's own reception centres and show how far the lodging houses and hostels represent an extension of the centre's work. A survey of accommodation only has been carried out in London on behalf of the London Boroughs Association. This, too, will help.
In addition, the hon. Member for Woolwich East refered to some of the research work being undertaken. A major contribution to knowledge about the reception centre population will be made by the research team from the Institute of Psychiatry whose report has been recently completed. They have already shown how much the population of Camberwell Reception Centre is affected by illness or disorder or inadequacy of personality. Of some 8,000 passing through the centre in 1970, 1,400 suffered from mental illness, 1,500 from personality disorder, and 2,000 from alcoholism. These figures emphasise what the hon. Gentleman said about the medical needs of a large percentage of the people who use these centres. From the information we have, it is fairly clear that a similar picture applies to other reception centres in other parts of the country.
In addition to these pieces of research, the Supplementary Benefits Commission is also fostering an "action research" project over seven years undertaken by the St. Mungo's Community. The plan is to persuade men sleeping rough to go to a 15-bed "assessment centre" from which they would go to a short-stay hostel suited to their various needs. Three such hostels have already been set up. It is hoped that permanent accommodation would be found for residents. Useful data should come from research into their social and medical histories. These are some examples of the research which is going on.
There has been reference to the working parties on homelessness set up to consider problems in London, and the Bristol and the Cardiff areas. Their reports are naturally most concerned with families with children, but the final London report turns its attention to the single homeless. This report recognised that some redirection of housing policy might be necessary,


with more housing suited to the needs of the single homeless and a relaxation of the rules about lodging. On the other hand, the social service departments would need to expand their social work and residential services to help single people needing care and attention.
All three reports recognise that there are problems, whether for families or others, that, particularly in London, could be dealt with sensibly only with close inter-authority working. I entirely accept the view that we cannot expect one local authority which happens to have an institution of this kind within its borders to accept the problems which flow from that. Matters must be arranged on a wider basis.
I note the strong trend to acceptance by the London boroughs of the principles in the first report. All three reports have been sent to over 100 authorities which are affected by them, and there will be discussions with those authorities in the autumn when they have had a chance to study the recommendations. Out of this we hope will come a general statement of policy and aims which can be promulgated in a circular to all authorities at the turn of the year. I hope that answers another point raised by the hon. Member.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned his surprise at the fact that the work of the Supplementary Benefits Commission and the reception centres is not included there. The main reason is that this report deals with the need for accommodation of a fairly permanent nature, whereas the Supplementary Benefits Commission is concerned with short-term accommodation and therefore in that sense is not within the terms of reference of the working parties.
Perhaps I may turn to the Supplementary Benefits Commission and the reception centres and say a bit more of what they are doing and what their plans are for the future. As I mentioned, the Commission has a responsibility to try to influence people without a settled way of living to lead a more settled life, and for this purpose to provide temporary board and lodging in reception centres. The Commission has no power to promote long-term accommodation whether in the lodging house category or for long-

term supportive and rehabilitation purposes.
The Commission maintains 14 reception centres in various parts of the country, and a further four are run by local authorities on the Commission's behalf. These centres provide accommodation for 2,250 people; on average 1,500 beds are used each night. Half the beds are in London where there are three reception centres, one for men and two for women. A centre for men at Camberwell provides, with an annex at Battersea, 988 beds. A further 70 beds can, if need be, be brought into use. An additional annex with 100 beds is due to be opened before the end of the year. The centres for women, at Southwark and Camden provide 90 beds.
I am grateful for the tributes which have been paid during the debate to the devoted work of the staff who work very often in very difficult and trying circumstances in these reception centres. We all recognise that the Camberwell centre is out of date and that it should be replaced. Indeed, it is the policy of the Commission to replace this large antiquated building with a number of smaller centres throughout the London area. Centres are due to open at Willesden early next year and at Notting Hill later next year. Plans are in hand for two other centres. Regrettably, however, there is no immediate prospect of closing Camberwell, because of the increased demand for reception centre beds in London.

Mr. Ronald Brown: The hon. Gentleman has again named two inner London areas which are already stress areas. How many of these places that he is proposing will be built in the outer areas where there is the land and the availability to rehabilitate?

Mr. Dean: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It was for that reason that I stressed the need for this problem to be seen over a very much wider area than one single borough. That is why we are anxious to spread the load over the whole of London, so that one particular area does not feel that it has more than its fair share. Equally in siting these centres, the Commission knows from long experience that they have to be pretty central. Otherwise the people whom we hope to help simply will not go there.
I was about to deal with a point that the hon. Member for Willesden, East raised, when he asked: why the long delay in developing these sites? I have gone into this. I asked exactly the same question myself when I took responsibility for these matters.
There is a series of reasons, the main ones being the understandable difficulties involved in obtaining planning permission from the local authorities concerned and in doing all the other necessary preparatory work. But I hope that the House will agree, from what I have been able to announce, that plans are going forward to relieve the pressure on the Camberwell centre, and before long, we hope, we shall be in a position to replace it by better facilities more in keeping with the type of treatment and care which we wish nowadays to provide.

Mr. Freeson: Although I shall not pursue the point now, I do not accept that there have been such terrible difficulties over the last four years. But will the Minister make clear whether it is intended to start work early next year in Willesden and later in the year, in the summer or autumn, in another district of London, or are we to take it that the centres will open at those two points in time?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask hon. Members to be a little more unselfish. This debate began at half-past seven. There remain another 16 or so which have been requested, and I hope that this debate can be concluded as soon as possible.

Mr. Dean: I take note of what you have said, Mr. Speaker, and I shall be as quick as I can in answering as many as possible of the large number of points raised in the debate.
The centre at Willesden is due to open early next year, and the one at Notting Hill later that year. Both are due to open, in other words to be in business then.
The reception centres are essentially clearing houses. Their purpose is to provide a skilled assessment so that those coming to a centre may be dealt with according to their need for medical and social services, or simply for a roof. The centres try to encourage the men and women who go there to settle to a more

normal life. They are invited to stay for a time so that the staff may get to know them and help them. Where appropriate and possible, they are referred to specialist services, such as those for the mentally ill. Those who stay receive any necessary medical treatment from visiting doctors, and are helped to regain the habit of work and to find lodgings outside.
Sometimes, a measure of rehabilitation is achieved, but, all too often, unfortunately, in the absence of a continued supportive environment, the good work is wasted and the men drift back to their former way of life. The multiplication of reception centre beds is, therefore, only a palliative. What is needed is action of the kind now being taken to provide appropriate long-term accommodation, particularly of the lodging-house type, or social support in a protective environment.
In that context, I shall say a word about the mental health services which, I know, are of particular concern to the hon. Member for Woolwich, East. The hon. Gentleman made a powerful plea for recognition that one of the results of the Mental Health Act, 1959, is that many more people who previously would have been within some form of institution are in fact released, and, therefore, of the need for additional support and care for them within the community. We entirely accept that. There is no doubt that many of the problems with which we are concerned here are problems with which the mental health services in the community will have to deal. It is for this reason that both those services and the services in hospital are being increased. My right hon. Friend has asked the local authorities to produce 10-year plans for the development of their personal social services, which will include the services required on the mental health side. More money is being made available for these services.
Now, a word about alcoholism, which was mentioned by several hon. Members. Part of the sum set aside for special services—about £2 million—is reserved for services for alcoholics. My Department has accepted responsibility for counselling, treatment and rehabilitation services for all people suffering from alcoholism, including ex-prisoners and other offenders,


Six new units have been approved for development bringing the total to 22 with 465 beds, and further additions are being discussed. An accent will be placed on the encouragement of rehabilitation hostels.
Voluntary organisations have been mentioned, and I pay tribute to the splendid work which they are doing amongst the homeless. Equally, we recognise not only their important contribution but their need for financial support if they are to continue to do the work. As a result, both my Department and the Supplementary Benefits Commission make substantial grants to assist these bodies in the work that they do. We believe that the different approach, the informal approach which is possible, can be of considerable help in making contact with these vulnerable people.
Housing is clearly an important aspect which has been referred to and perhaps I may briefly remind the House of two things. First, the Housing Act, 1967 gives authorities all the powers which they need to provide whatever housing is needed, including lodging houses and hostels in their area. Secondly, whatever the size of the housing problem, priorities are a practical necessity. Just after the war it was for the family. In later years it has been possible to do more by way of providing smaller dwellings for the elderly. Now we are reaching the point at which it is possible, we hope, for authorities to be able to do more for the single homeless.
The housing problems of adult families and single people figure in all three working party reports to which I have referred and will figure in the discussions and policy statements which we hope to produce.
The decline in lodging houses was another point which figured largely in the debate, and the decline in the stock of lodging houses and hostels for economic reasons has been one of the disturbing features of recent years. It was highlighted in London by the closure of Butterwick House which was referred to on a number of occasions. There have, in consequence, been intensive discussions in which my Department and the Supplementary Benefits Commission have been involved with voluntary organisations and the London boroughs.
The two propositions now being considered most prominently are, first, that some form of early warning system should be set up by the Government to guard against the effect of unforeseen closures; and, secondly, that the Government should seek to secure the maintenance of an adequate stock of accommodation. Action is being taken on both those fronts, but what is needed is a clear picture of the spectrum of accommodation needs. The Supplementary Benefits Commission's and the London Boroughs Association's surveys will help greatly in this, and so will information from voluntary bodies.
I am sorry that it has not been possible in the time available to deal with all the points that have been raised in this extremely interesting debate, but I hope that I have said enough to convey to the House that the Government are as concerned as are both sides of the House about this problem. We recognise that it is growing, and I hope that I have been able to show, from what I have said, from what we have done and from the plans that we have for the future, that we intend, in co-operation with the local authorities and the voluntary organisations, to see that more is done to deal with it.

WATER AND SEWAGE SERVICES

10.14 p.m.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Unlike the debate which has just concluded, the one that I am about to initiate does not concern a desperate human problem, and therefore it probably will be very much shorter, yet it is a matter which affects a much greater number of our fellow citizens, because it concerns their health and welfare.
I have sought to raise this question tonight simply because I have had more letters from my constituents about future rights of navigation on our canals and rivers than about any other single issue. The future of the whale runs a close second. As a lover of tranquillity and of our countryside, I am in strong sympathy with my correspondents.
The Government's objects in making the proposals contained in Circular 92 of last December were described in a later memorandum as being, first, to provide a more "appropriate" structure for our waterways—more appropriate, be it noted, than that provided only four years ago by the Transport Act, 1968—and, secondly, to give local interests
a greater say in the operation and development
of these facilities.
I think it only right at once to express my great appreciation of the pains taken by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to consult anyone who has any interest in the matter. He invited over 80 such bodies to a conference on waterways which he arranged on 28th February this year, whose purpose was to examine the effect of the Government's proposals on sport and recreation and on the enhancement of urban and rural amenities as well as the promotion of inland water-borne commerce. My hon. Friend confirmed in answer to a Question on 9th February that the terms of reference of the conference would make it possible
for people to advocate the complete separation of the control of navigation from the provision of water."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1972; Vol. 830, c. 1331.]

That is what the dissentients essentially want to happen.
The announcement by my hon. Friend at the conference that Mr. John Humphries was to be appointed adviser to the Government
on the leisure use of water space, with particular reference to canals
was widely welcomed. There has been some welcome, too, varying in warmth, from some quarters for the proposals in so far as they affect water supply and sewerage. For example, the British Waterways Board
fully support the proposals suggested, in so far as they relate to the reorganisation of water and sewage services; as they recognise the urgent need to deal with long-term prospects for water supply in this country and for maintaining and improving the quality of our rivers.
There is indeed an urgent need to deal with the long-term prospects of water supply. Ten authorities in the place of 1,400 must be a step in the right direction.
The Board's main cause for dismay is that it is to be wound up
with no recognisable national authority to take their place.
The four local authority associations also consider that
the omission of an effective national body
—such as the National Water Authority suggested by the Central Advisory Water Committee—
is a fundamental defect in the Government's proposals.
Such a body is needed, they consider,
to give advice to Ministers and the regional water authorities; to formulate a national plan for water services; and to co-ordinate research.
They further consider that the detailed management of the water and sewage services should be carried out by the most appropriate democratically-elected bodies in the country, namely by local government, instead of by what they call
remote and undemocratic authorities".
They suggest that there should be at least a two-thirds representation from local authorities on the regional water authorities because
water and sewerage systems are intimately linked with planning, housing, health and recreation.


As the Wheatley Commission said:
Few functions seem to belong more self-evidently to local government.
These local authority associations evidently do not consider that local interests will have a greater say in these matters under the Government's proposals. In case my hon. Friend should mention consumer councils, may I say that there is an old saying which describes the three most useless things in the world. With the first two I will not sully your ears, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The third was the annual vote of thanks to the staff. Consumer councils are probably competing for the fourth.
I am concerned this evening mainly with the commercial and amenity aspects of our waterways and more especially with the latter. Here it would be true to say that no individual or body of individuals with any intimate knowledge or practical experience of using the waterways has a good word to say for the Government's proposals. It is this fact which must raise doubts in our minds as to their wisdom. On the commercial side, as my hon. Friend knows, or at any rate as his right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries knows, I am increasingly concerned about the dangers to health, life and to the roads themselves caused by the carriage of so much freight by heavy lorries. With more expenditure and encouragement much wider use could be made of alternative methods. It is true that a minimal percentage of goods is now carried by inland water. Even 6½ million tons a year taken off the roads is not to be despised.
The results of the researches of the British Waterways Board might have led to much greater use of the waterways. Now these researches into new means of water transport will presumably be lost. By the amenity side of the question I mean cruising, canoeing, fishing, walking along the towpath and camping. I cannot but agree with the Inland Waterways Association when it wrote in "Waterways Junction"—described by my hon. Friend as a most valuable contribution to the discussion—
It is of the greatest importance that the authority in charge of the inland waterways should be keenly interested in developing them for the future. A body which merely maintains the status quo will not be sufficient.

And later:
There tends to be a basic conflict of interest between those who find pleasure on, or beside, water … and those who extract water, discharge effluent or operate flood controls. We do not believe that these conflicts will be best resolved if one authority is in overall control … particularly as the amenity and trade use will constitute less than 1 per cent. of the new regional water authorities affairs.
For the sailor, the cruiser and the fisherman the security of maintenance is essential. I was shocked to read in the memorandum of the British Waterways Board that the Government would apparently view with equanimity that the statutory duty to maintain a waterway could be modified by a Minister if a regional water authority considered it too costly to maintain it for navigation. For these recreational purposes the waterways should surely be under single and separate control. Their day-to-day running requires
specialised skills to cover such services as water control, lock repairs and safety, all of which need to be co-ordinated over wide areas to ensure the efficiency of the system as a whole.
As "The Facts about the Waterways' wrote:
lock-opening times, and lock maintenance stoppages need careful pre-arrangement and publication over a wide area to ensure the minimum of inconvenience, not only to craft but also from the point of view of the maintenance of industrial water supplies.
It is true that Sections 104 and 105 of the Transport Act, 1968, will continue to impose on the regional water authorities the duty to
maintain the commercial and cruising waterways in suitable navigable condition".
But where is the sanction provided—unsatisfactory as it was in many ways, but better than nothing—by Section 106? What, or who, will guarantee the citizen's right of navigation over our canals and rivers as his right of passage over the Queen's highway is now guaranteed?
Although this was not an election pledge in that it was not in our manifesto, it was certainly our declared intention in opposition that there should once again be a public right of navigation; and it is not enough to say that because there do not seem to have been "difficulties in practice" since the 1968 Act no further action is necessary. As the British Waterways Board says in its memorandum:


Without a public right of navigation, no one is in a position to complain
—for example, against injury or damage, or failure to maintain, or refusal to allow navigation or business loss.
In practice and in law, the duty to repair and the right of navigation are indissoluble.
Navigation is essential to prevent the disfigurement of, and to embellish, our countryside and to reduce the risk to public health. Many of the so-called remainder waterways should be reconditioned. As "The Facts about the Waterways" puts it,
If only little bits here and there were left open, the situation would become static and the possibilities of growth correspondingly small. If a lot is kept open, it is reasonable to assume that over the years the revenue will significantly increase.
I need not detain the House much longer. There are 16 more subjects to be discussed between now and tomorrow morning. I have conveyed to my hon. Friend all the submissions which I have received from my constituents and he has, I know, weighed each of them carefully and has been good enough to say that they have aided counsel.
In sum, canal lovers were beginning to feel that their future had never looked brighter. The old railway yoke had gone and the British Waterways Board was doing a good job. Local authorities were at last beginning to take an interest in and to spend a little money on their canals. Volunteer restoration movements were flourishing.
Rightly or wrongly, canal users believe that the new proposals will damp all that down. Canals are not only of local interest. Their users want to get somewhere—and preferably as fast as possible. I was therefore pleased when my hon. Friend wrote to me saying:
We attach great importance to obtaining the greatest practicable recreational and amenity use from our water resources; and our plans are designed most specially to promote this".
Perhaps he will be able tonight to tell us more as a result of the consultations which he has been having. If so, there will be no lack of interested hearers. If not, I would prefer to wait a little longer for the right answer than to get the wrong one now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Ronald Russell): Mr. Stoddart.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. David Stoddart: May I congratulate you, Sir Ronald, on your appointment and say that I deem it an honour to be the first Member called by you in your new rôle?
I was very interested in what the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden) said about canals. I have been specially interested in one canal and on a couple of occasions I have endeavoured to get the Minister to make a grant to the Kennet and Avon Canal as there are many people doing a great deal of work on this canal with a view to reopening it completely between Bath and London. They will be particularly worried by the Minister's proposals for water and sewerage reorganisation.
It seems to me that, by the doing away with the British Waterways Board, those people who want to restore the Kennet and Avon Canal will not have as much consideration as they are getting now—and they need a lot of consideration, as the Under-Secretary well knows. They need £600,000 to be able to restore the canal for recreational use throughout its whole length. Therefore, I should think the Kennet and Avon Canal Society and the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust will be extremely worried about these proposals, and I hope the Under-Secretary, when he replies, will give some attention to these matters and will let us know—and I have a particular interest in this waterway—exactly how the proposals will affect the people who are trying to restore a very good amenity for the people in its area.
I do not want to dwell too much on canals, and I do not want to detain the House for very long, but I must say that I am very concerned and very worried, as people in the country ought to be worried, about the proposals contained in the circular for reorganisation of water supplies and drainage. It seems to me that control of these services is to be removed from local government, from democratic control, to the control of grey men, administration men who are appointees of the Minister—in other words, the faceless ones, who will not be responsive and not be responsible to public opinion.
Over a long period of time the Government have been removing service after


service from the control of local government, from democratic control, from control by elected men. To some degree the local authorities themselves have, perhaps, asked for it, because they have not moved with the times, they have not themselves done what is necessary, even though, to some degree, they have been invited to do so, although not compelled to do so, by successive Ministers. It would have been much better for water supply and conservation if local authorities had been prepared voluntarily to regroup in larger units. Many of them have done this, but all too many have not done it. Nevertheless, this is no case, and there is no case at the present time, for removing particularly distribution from democratic control and handing it over to an appointed body which, to a very large degree, will be under the control of the Minister, through people appointed by him.
Because, like other hon. Members, I have contacts with members of local authorities I know that they are incensed at the proposals, and incensed not only because control is being removed from them but also because of the disparity of treatment meted out to them and to the statutory water companies. They see no reason why the statutory water companies should be allowed to continue on an agency basis when the local authority organisation will ultimately be swept away.
They have also noted that the Minister's proposal is quite inconsistent. He has said that the present system of organisation is inadequate and that there is need to bring the full hydrological cycle under one management, but that is not in keeping with what he intends to do. He intends to take away the management from local authorities, but to leave part of the management within the control of the statutory water companies.
I can only assume that the decision has been taken on a party political basis since it seems to make no reasonable sense in terms of unified management. The Minister will have to do a lot to convince local authorities that he is not discriminating against them and that he does not have some party political motive in allowing the statutory water undertakings to continue.
I was interested to read—and certainly the public will be most interested to hear this—that the idea of charging for water on a metered basis is being recommended by the Department of the Environment. If the proposal is enforced nationwide, it will have far-reaching effects on what the consumer pays and on how he uses water. I am not convinced that it is right to recommend such a course at this point in time.
It must be well known to the Minister and his advisers that to install meters for every consumer will be very expensive. It will cost £500 million to install meters initially, and then there is their maintenance, which will also be an expensive operation.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): Is the hon. Gentleman ascribing that proposal to the Government? If he is, then he is quite wrong.

Mr. Stoddart: It is contained in paragraph 7 of the consultation paper:
The timing of meter installation will be a matter for the judgment of the individual regional water authorities. The installation of meters in particular areas may be justified economically by their effect in reducing peak demands, for example for garden watering, or in making it possible to defer capital investment in new water sources or sewage treatment plant.
This is what is proposed in the Government's consultation document.

Mr. Griffiths: No.

Mr. Stoddart: The Minister says "No", but I recommend him to read this document.

Mr. Griffiths: I know the consultation document backwards. What the hon. Gentleman read out confirms my own recollection of it, namely that this is a matter for the judgment of individual water authorities in their own area and in their own circumstances.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the Minister aware that the concluding sentence of paragraph 7 says:
It is therefore apparent that universal metering is unlikely to be achieved for a considerable period of years and regional water authorities will be enabled to bring different consumers on to metering at different times."?
Taking that sentence with the initial part of the document, will the Minister agree that it envisages some time in the future


when there will be universal metering and that that will be the policy of the present Government?

Mr. Griffiths: No.

Mr. Stoddart: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) for his support on that point.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare): It is rubbish.

Mr. Stoddart: The hon. Gentleman says that it is rubbish. I do not know whether he has read the document. My reading of it is that there is a distinct invitation to the regional water authorities to change the present basis of charging for supplies to a metered basis. The document goes as far as saying not only that the water supply end should be metered but also that the effluent end should be metered. There is a direct invitation for the proposed regional water authorities to do this.

Mr. Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman is on a very important point but he has hold of the wrong end of the stick. Very many small consumers would strongly welcome the introduction of metering. For a long time many of us have pressed the Government to investigate this matter. The Government are so doing in Malvern, which for many years has had a wholly metered supply. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has received letters from single people who feel that it is quite wrong the rateable value of their premises should be used as the yardstick for the amount of water they consume. This is a very complex matter. To draw the conclusion that it would necessarily be more expensive is wrong.

Mr. Stoddart: If the hon. Gentleman had allowed me to develop my argument he would have come to realise that I fully appreciate the point he made, and that there probably is a case for a change in the present charging system. But metering is not necessarily the right approach. Metering will be an extremely expensive operation. It will cost £500 million. One way or another, that has to be paid by the consumer. The Department's estimate of £500 million to instal meters initially is contained in the consultation document. The maintenance of these meters is expensive, as the Minister knows. Water meters are not in the

same category as electricity or gas meters, and they need much more maintenance. Therefore, it will be an expensive operation. With yet another meter reader calling at every house, costs will escalate considerably. On that basis alone, the Minister is beginning at an early stage to give wrong advice to the regional water authorities.

Sir Gilbert Longden: How does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the rapidly diminishing quantities of water which have to serve a rapidly increasing population shall be rationed unless by meter?

Mr. Stoddart: I am not at all sure that supplies of water are rapidly diminishing. It may well be that they are rapidly being wasted. Undoubtedly there is a need for a water conservation policy and a need for the regional water authorities to be set up for water conservation. I am not quarrelling with that at all. I am quarrelling with the Minister's failure to recognise that it is possible to set up regional water authorities for water conservation and overall general water policy without at the same time doing away with local government's democratic involvement in the supply of water by not allowing it to have a rôle in water distribution and sewerage. Many people, particularly in local authorities, believe that this is possible.
I accept that there is a need for water conservation and ensuring that water gets from one place to another in the most efficient way, reaching the consumers who need and use it. I also accept that there is a need to see that people do not waste water. However, this can probably be done to a large degree by other than the expensive means of installing water meters.
For example, if we wanted another system, we could charge for water on the basis of the number of bedrooms in a house. This would not involve meter charges. In that way we could prevent the country from being saddled with a cost of £500 million which will be borne by the consumers. This is not the only way that water can be charged for while at the same time helping to conserve supplies and to prevent people from wasting water. I sincerely hope that the Minister will have many thoughts on this matter and give it rather more attention than he has done hitherto.
I have been a member of a water board for many years. Some years ago the Thames Valley Water Board considered whether it should charge through meters for water supplies. It came to the conclusion that it would involve its consumers in unjustified expense and that there were other means of charging than installing water meters.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will have a long look at the problem to see whether there are other means of ensuring that water is conserved and that people do not waste water, at the same time saving the country this enormous cost of £500 million and the recurring cost of maintenance, meter reading and billing charges. Industry has too many overhead charges thrust upon it. I believe that this is an overhead charge which we can prevent being thrust on the water supply industry.
I urge the Minister, before the Bill is published, to consider the position of local authorities and their members. I lay great emphasis on democratic control and the participation of elected members of local authorities in this service which, after all, has largely been under their control for a long time. There is a great deal of feeling in the country about this matter. The Minister should listen very closely and act on what is said, because it will be to the benefit not only of himself but of local democracy and of water consumers generally.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I agree with the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) on one thing—in congratulating you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on taking the Chair. I hope you have a long tenure of office. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for the reorganisation of our water resources, but that is about as far as I go in agreeing with him.
On the two main points—political interference in the reorganisation of water resources, and the installing of water meters, which is a small point, the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. I entirely agree with the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) on that matter. The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting the case. The Government have not put

forward the proposal the hon. Gentleman suggests. The hon. Gentleman is deliberately misconstruing what has been said so as to cause trouble.

Mr. David Stoddart: No.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Yes he is. So is the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing).

Mr. Spearing: Mr. Spearing rose—

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: No, I shall not give way. Let me finish what I am trying to say, otherwise it will not make sense. The hon. Member for Swindon is trying to saddle the Government with a £500 million bill for the installation of water meters, but that is not the Government's suggestion. The Government are giving the option in a consultative document to regional authorities to install meters in future if so required. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there will be many local government representatives on the boards who will be appointed by my right hon. Friend. If it so wishes, a board would be able to install meters over the years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare is right. My postbag also contains a great many letters from people living on their own who are complaining bitterly about the existing system of water rate charges. They would prefer to have a metered supply. In other areas people would prefer not to have meters. But the matter will be decided by the regional authorities. It will be their decision, not the Government's. The Government are giving the option.
As for the suggestion of the hon. Member for Swindon of charging per bedroom, is he going to charge on the acreage of gardens or some other "equitable" system? The whole thing is ridiculously stupid and not worth considering. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, it will be convenient if he does so now.

Mr. Stoddart: I take it hard that the hon. Gentleman should accuse me of wanting to make trouble and that I quoted figures merely to cause trouble. Why the hon. Gentleman should think that I want to cause trouble for the water consumer or the Minister, I do not know. My concern, which I thought I made plain, was that the water consumer should


not be saddled with a charge which is mentioned in the consultative document. In that respect I was trying to make no trouble for the Minister. I was merely asking the Minister to use his good offices to prevent the consumer from being saddled with that sort of charge.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman has deliberately misrepresented the situation, which I have tried to explain. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Acton are trying to cause anxiety amongst the population, not only on the meter issue but by alleging that democratic control, as the hon. Member for Swindon puts it, will be abolished. That is not true. The hon. Gentleman should read the statement which my right hon. Friend made in the House. My right hon. Friend said:
In view of the local authorities' clear interest in water supply and pollution control, I have decided that a substantial proportion of the members of each regional water authority will he appointed by local government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1971; Vol. 827, c. 677–8.]
The hon. Gentleman should not pursue his line of attack too far. If he does so, he will act to the detriment of himself and his party. The matter should, as far as is possible, be taken out of the political arena.

Mr. Spearing: Hear, hear.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I shall be delighted to give way. If he does not, I suggest that he should not try to intervene from a sedentary position.

Mr. Spearing: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he misheard me. I said, "Hear, Hear". I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not appreciate my support of his last statement, which I will enlarge upon later.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: If the hon. Gentleman makes interventions from a seated position, clearly it is difficult to understand whether he is saying "Hear, Hear" or "No, No." I am delighted to hear that he was agreeing with me.
The point made by the hon. Member for Swindon about statutory water authorities is causing great anxiety throughout the country over the question why they are being asked to continue to act in an agency capacity for the regional autho-

rities and not the municipal undertakings. I join the congratulations of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden) on the Minister's long consultations with the various authorities concerned. Nevertheless, anxiety on this issue remains and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to go some way towards resolving it. The position seems somewhat strange.
I have been worried about water resources for several years, having moved into an area of scarcity compared with the situation of the West Country where I used to be. In Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Sheffield—indeed, in Yorkshire—where we are great consumers of water, we are in some difficulty. Although there is a certain amount of reservoir capacity in the Pennines and the Peak park area, it is not and will not be sufficient for the coming years. I do not think there will be an actual shortage of water, but there is without doubt considerable anxiety in that part of the East Midlands that in years to come—and not so far ahead—there will be difficulty and, indeed, even rationing of water, unless something is done. This is why I welcome the reorganisation of our water resources.
Last session, I introduced a private Member's Bill concerning the need to set up an authority in Wales which would sell water to the English authorities, the money to be used for the benefit of the people of Wales. I am delighted now to see that there is to be a Welsh authority and I hope that the idea which I outlined in that Bill will be adopted. The basic need is to be able to switch water from west to east over the Pennines. It is a vital necessity for the East Midlands and, indeed, the West Midlands. I once held ministerial responsibility for this and it amazed me even in the early 1960s that we did not have arrangements for the allocation of money to meet such need. I hope that under the new set-up as soon as possible money will be allocated for the establishment of a national grid or network.

Mr. Wiggin: Will my hon. Friend reconsider his statement about the selling of Welsh water? This has been a matter of political dispute in Wales for many years. It is an argument which can be carried to an absurd degree. If we allow the new regional water authority in Wales to contemplate selling Welsh water


to the rest of the United Kingdom, all sorts of other implications could follow. It would be very dangerous.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I accept that there is that anxiety. When I introduced my Bill, the situation was different, however. The new authorities had not then been announced. I cannot, therefore, go all along with my hon. Friend. I understand that once one institutes the selling of water by one authority to another, there is no point at which one can say, "Stop. We shall not sell water to Humberside or from the dales of Yorkshire", for example. The Government and the new authorities will have to deal with the situation and to think carefully before coming to a decision. It is not for me to make a decisive judgment. Obviously, what my hon. Friend said must be borne carefully in mind. We go on from there to the situation in the Peak National Park and other national parks throughout the country where there are many reservoirs and enormous trouble is caused by the number of reservoirs being set up or intended, and their use of agricultural land.
I shall not labour the point, but this is an extremely difficult issue and I do not think we can go much further on the line of taking good land for reservoirs when there is, or should be, sufficient water in Wales or the West Country where rainfall is much higher. If there were proper conservation, and if switching facilities existed, there should be no need for extra reservoir facilities on the spine of England or in the eastern part of the country. I am glad that the amenity use of reservoirs is highlighted in the document issued by my right hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend is aware that there are anxieties. The hon. Member for Swindon and others have underlined that there are anxieties. Local authorities and others have anxieties about the proposed new set up. The NFU is also particularly anxious and the issue of inland drainage authorities is causing extreme anxiety to those authorities and to the people who live in those areas. I shall not dwell on that tonight because my hon. Friend is well seized of it. There must be further consultation on those points, but nobody is satisfied with them at present.
My final point on organisation concerns the areas which have been decided. My

right hon. Friend has decided there should be 10 areas in Great Britain, and accomplishing this means that one area is to be joined with another to include Severn and Trent. This is a huge area, stretching from the Severn and Wales in the west to the east coast of Lincolnshire.
I should warn my hon. Friend that I have talked to nobody in my part of the world in the East Midlands—I underline, in my part of the world—whether it be the farming community, the local authority or the ordinary citizen, my constituent, who believes that this will be a Rood amalgamation or that it is a reasonable and proper area or one which can be reasonably controlled or can give reasonable access to my constituents within the area. It is an enormous area including Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, running right across to the Severn basin and catchment area.
I understand the need for administrative tidiness but in this case my right hon. Friend has taken it one stage too far. These are separate catchment areas, with a line drawn between them, and purely on the question of moving from 10 to 11 areas, my right hon. Friend should have more consultations and negotiations with those concerned. If he does that he will learn the strength of feeling of which I have heard and will come to a new conclusion.
I am certain, however, that what is done in principle is right. I do not believe that the political implications are such that democratic control will not work adequately and well.
There are many matters and many minor issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West mentioned that of waterways and canals. There will be others later, such as inland drainage, but unless we are to be short of water in some areas we shall be in the greatest difficulty if action is not backed by adequate finance.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I think that the whole House is grateful to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden) for winning fifth place in the ballot for this series of debates—not only the House, but the public as a whole. Although there have been two major reports and a whole series of consultation papers on water


reorganisation, this is the first time that the House has been given an opportunity to debate it without a time limit, although we all know that other important debates are to follow.
I cannot agree that consultation in this matter has been sufficient or necessarily good. Although it has its place, the spoken word at a conference is not necessarily better than a properly written document properly circulated to the customary authorities together with Green and White Papers, and we have not had the last two.
I, too, have considerable misgivings about the breaking up of the Water Resources Board, and I agree that the proposed National Water Council is no substitute. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) that these proposals amount to a substitution of Whitehall autocracy for local democracy. Despite what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) said about the need for a national organisation, the end of the Water Resources Board is the ending of a fine national organisation serving the ends of which he spoke.
I am interested in this subject as a member of the Inland Waterways Association, as a vice-chairman of the River Thames Society and as a user of water in many aspects which are under discussion. I know that the Under-Secretary has many responsibilities, but I hope that if tonight he is unable to answer all the questions that I intend to put, he will endeavour to do so in correspondence, for there are many people who want to know the answers to many questions.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West spoke about party controversy. In the House there is a fairly clear distinction between matters of public importance generally that are not matters of party political difference, res publica, public affairs, where there is general agreement about criteria, and matters where there is a difference of party interest. I should have thought that water supply was a matter that everybody would agree was apart from party attitudes.
I should have thought that we could all agree about public accountability in this respect, believing that there was an obligation on any Government properly

to explain their proposals, especially when one would not expect party controversy. I should have thought that water supply was a good candidate for this class of subject. There is a wide measure of agreement about it and many of the Acts about it have been non-party measures. The first Standing Committee on which I served had a wide measure of agreement on this subject.
There is a great national feeling for the environment and about pollution. Water supplies, the inspection of water, ownership and navigation rights and so on are mainly in the hands of public authorities, many of them local authorities. With all that in mind, one would have thought that we could have a non-party debate.
Unfortunately, that does not seem to be so. There have been a number of illogicalities in the Government's proposals which some people have rather naughtily suggested—perhaps not naughtily but with some justification—to be the result of the Government making party political twists. I am not necessarily making that charge, but prima facie there is a case for it, as I hope the House will see as I proceed.
There are at least nine major functions which water fulfils and in which it plays a fundamental part. There is domestic water and domestic effluent. There is industrial water supply, some of which needs to be potable and some of it not; and there is industrial effluent. There is land drainage, flood prevention and the supply of water for electricity generation cooling. There is the recreational aspect of water, including in particular angling. There is also lazing by the water, and walking by the water. There is navigation, recreational and commercial. There are fisheries, as distinct from angling—because of the commercial nature of the activity—and in certain parts of the country there is use of water for the supply of power.
We have nine major functions for water courses, and two minor ones. I should have thought that it was clear that trying to isolate each of these functions and applying the conventional "account book business style administration" was virtually impossible. If one were to try to calculate to a nicety the


exact amount of costs which are applicable to one function or the other, one would soon end up in an accountant's nightmare. The obvious thing is to say that water plays a vital function. We require pure water rather more frequently than we require food to keep us alive. The whole organism of a city like London depends basically on good water and good drainage. There are certain functions which are essential to public and industrial life, and if we pay for these as a basic fundamental service and we can get something else for it as well, let us use that extra facility.
The Thames Conservancy has worked on this basis for over a century, and it is a pity that the Thames Conservancy is nearing the end of its days. Consider the locks. If there were no navigation for recreation on the Thames, the locks would still be necessary. The Thames Conservancy would have to maintain its weirs and it would still have to dredge. It would need heads of water. It would need the locks for its own traffic. They are there as an essential part of the equipment. It may be that there is an additional cost involved when the locks are used for other purposes, but it is basically a marginal affair.
Water is a fundamental feature of our landscape and our public life, and I should have thought that we ought to consider it in that way. But the Government in their Circular do not look at it in that way.
Another thing which the Government have not done and which one might have expected in their water reorganisation proposals is to follow the past practice of securing the participation of this House in considering these proposals. The Central Advisory Water Committee in its report of February, 1971, recommended that there be a Green Paper on this complex and important subject. We have had no Green Paper. I have asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has more or less discovered the environment and talks a lot about it and about rivers, whether we shall have a White Paper setting out the Government's intentions in this matter after their consultations. Alas, in an answer to a Written Question and in a later supplementary reply, no such undertaking has been given.
How is it possible to have consultation unless one knows what the Government are going to do? How is it possible to have in this House proper scrutiny of a Bill, which is a highly technical legal document, unless the objectives in the Bill are set out properly in a White Paper? I should have thought that on an important matter like this, just as we had a health services White Paper yesterday, we should be told where the Government are going. But it does not look as though we shall get a White Paper. This is a major breakdown in the democratic process, and it is a comment on the way in which the Government view this House and its Members. The Government's attitude is reflected in the way in which they have gone about this whole matter.
As I said, the Central Advisory Water Committee reported in December, 1971, but its terms of reference did not include navigation and did not include the canals. The terms of reference were to consider
… how the functions relating to water conservation, management of water resources, water supply, sewerage, sewage disposal and the prevention of pollution now exercised by local authorities, public water undertakings and sewerage and sewage disposal authorities can best he organised; and to make recommendations".
Nothing about navigation, and nothing about the British Waterways Board or any of the other matters which have been brought into the re-organisation proposals.
On 2nd December, we had an Appendix to the circular—not a Green Paper—and a statement in the House by the Secretary of State in which he said that the canals will be brought in. He said that this was as a result of a suggestion in the CAWC Report. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us where it is, because I cannot find it. It may, perhaps, have been in a footnote. But how the Secretary of State could justify that statement in his circular when it was not within the terms of reference of the CAWC Report, using that as his excuse when, in fact, it was not there, is beyond my understanding, and a lot of other people's, too.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon mentioned the apparent anomaly of allowing the water companies to remain, whereas the municipal undertakings are, in effect, nationalised. This


also is an illogicality There is a strong case for leaving both as agencies for administration and management. In my view, there could in addition be proper control of the catchment area river basin concept by a highly specialised team with teeth. This is quite possible, and I find it surprising that it has not been looked into in greater detail.
The announcements, when they came in December, 1971, were a bombshell and did not seem to have any reasoning behind them. We did not have the Green Paper which was expected.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West referred to the appointment, as adviser to the Government on inland waterways, of Mr. John Humphries, for whom I have every respect as, I believe, has everyone who has met him. But is it not unusual for the Government to appoint the chairman of the Inland Waterways Association, one of their greatest amenity critics, to advise them on canal matters, after they have decided what to do with the canals—or so they say? Either it means that they did not know much about canals when they issued their circular, or they have discovered now that they know less than they thought and they need more advice. They cannot have it both ways.
In reply to an Adjournment debate on the commercial use of waterways on 3rd March, the Under-Secretary of State used this phrase:
There is no question of breaking up the waterways."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 995.]
If there is no question of breaking up the waterways, why all the letters going to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West? I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us that the phrase means that he has accepted in essence proposals made by the Inland Waterways Association in its excellent memorandum, "Waterways Junction". It is possible to retain a unified canal network for management purposes while still not trespassing on the important functions of each regional water authority. I should have thought that there was a way round the problem, as the Inland Waterways Association has already suggested, and I hope that the Minister will give us some clue tonight whether that is a possibility.
Now, the question of finance, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon referred. We are often told at Question Time that more money will be available for waterways, more than the £2 million which the Exchequer gives to the British Waterways Board at the moment. This sum could easily be shown to be worthwhile in the land drainage function alone, for which not very much is given.
The financial consultation paper to which my hon. Friend referred is commercial in the extreme. It shows clearly that the regional water authorities will be run with a scrupulous eye on efficiency in the account book sense. This, no doubt, is why the suggestion of metering was brought in.
There will be cost allocations and performance comparisons, and all the sort of jargon that we get nowadays from firms which are selling relatively simple commodities such as chocolate. That may be all right for chocolate or biscuits, or if a firm is trying to sell a new produce to the housewife, but it is not necessarily the right way to run the accounts of multi-purpose regional water authorities. One cannot compare the "performance" of different regional water authorities with their different natural inheritances and different organisations which they have taken over, at least for accounting purposes. I do not believe that it can be done.
It is right to have one bill for water services which includes fresh water and disposal when it is contaminated, and if there is to be metering the relative cost will be halved because it will be metering sewage as well as water, but I hope that when the Minister replies he will assure us that this is not the only way in which the Government will look upon the charging of water.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West poured scorn upon my hon. Friend for suggesting the number of bedrooms in the house as a possible method for charging, but the number of bedrooms in a house does not often change. Once that is fixed as a ratio, it goes on for as long as the building remains the same. If there is metering, one has to bill for each period and do all these calculations.
There should be metering or some alternative charge other than a flat rate where consumption goes up, but not necessarily


the blanket formula as implied in this financial consultation paper.
The most important thing from the point of view of the public, apart from the charge, is the question where the extra money is to come from for amenity and navigation. We have heard time and again that more money will be available, but I cannot see anything in the consultation paper about where it will come from.
The next matter to which I wish to refer is the constitution of the regional water authorities. This has already been touched on by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West, who rightly said that local authority nominees will be a substantial proportion of the regional water authorities. But they will not be a majority, and it is made clear in this document that the number will be very small—about 15 to 20. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West disagrees. I think that that will be so, and perhaps the Minister will confirm it.
It means that the share of each lower-tier authority will be very small. The Minister gets over this by saying that there is a consultative council—and I shall come to that in a moment—but the people who will be on these regional water authorities will be cast in somewhat of a commercial mould. Paragraph 7, which is entitled "Constitution" says that the members
will therefore have to be selected on their capacity for providing management of the requisite calibre".
They are not necessarily going to be the managers in detail. I think that the detail managers will be the professional operators, not the lay members. These members will be appointed part time by the Minister, with possibly a full-time or semi full-time chairman, and I should not have thought that that was necessarily the sort of member that we have always had. There is a parallel here with the health authority situation about which the House was unhappy. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that it will not necessarily be the case that these members will be drawn predominantly from the private sector of industry, as they will have greater expertise in the type of management he has written into this document.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman talked about a model form of constitution for each of these regional water authorities. A model form implies that it is to be copied irrespective of the geographical nature of the regional water authorities. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West rightly said that one of these proposals is for the joint Severn and Trent catchment area authority. That sort of area authority need a fundamentally different sort of constitution from that for an authority such as the Thames Valley authority which is relatively small and at least based on large existing organisations. The concept of a model constition for a regional water authority is not realistic. The different geographical centres of the river basins and the historic nature of the groups and organisations to be taken over suggest that, far from having a model structure, we need a tailor-made structure for each case. I hope that the Minister will be able to give assurances on that.
I come to the vexed matter of the advisory councils. We are told that each regional water authority will have an advisory council. There was a water reorganisation consultation paper on that subject, but it said that recreation and transport were omitted because we had not had the consultation papers on the British Waterways Board. That is a most unfortunate omission.
Is it suggested in the document that the advisory councils shall be appointed by the local authorities and the recreational interests concerned? No. The suggestion is that they shall be appointed by the Minister. Thus, we have not only the majority of members of the authorities appointed by the Minister but also the people who are checking them on behalf of the public.
I have no doubt that the Minister will look to the sports councils or the nature conservancy groups and so on to nominate people. But if a person owes his position on a committee to appointment by the Minister—though it cannot be done by the Minister personally; it is a system of patronage and nomination—that inevitably has an effect on what he says and how he goes about his job. If he says something that the Minister does not like, he may not be reappointed, and if he is not reappointed, how can he properly represent on a consumer


council the views of the people at the receiving end? Not only are we getting away from local government, but the people who are to check these new management giants are nominated by the Minister. Many people will laugh at this view of public participation by ministerial appointment.
I asked Questions about the circulation of the consultation paper on public participation, and the Minister was kind enough on 25th April in Written Answers to give me the list of non-statutory organsations to which it had been sent. They included my own society, the River Thames Society, but the secretary had had to ring up the Department to get it. I had assumed that the Sports Council would be among the statutory organisations, because it plays an important part in recreation. Each of the regional sports councils has a water recreation sub-committee drawn from all the people in the area concerned with water recreation.
On 19th July I asked the hon. Gentleman what replies he had received from these sports councils, and he replied that only the Yorkshire and Humberside Sports Council had submitted comments. I am not surprised, because my information is that the sports councils did not receive the document. They are among the major bodies we might expect to receive it. I had assumed that they would, because I had assumed that the Sports Council was a statutory body. Perhaps it is not. Something has gone seriously wrong. The Greater London and South-East Sports Council had not seen the paper until very recently, when I drew it to its attention.
Far from there having been the sort of consultation that we have heard about, I should say that consultation, even on the public participation paper, has gone somewhat adrift—an ironic situation.
There is another consultation paper on safeguards for the staff. I shall not go into it in detail, because it is a professional matter. Safeguards for the staff of the organisations that are to disappear or be amalgamated with other organisations are very important. At least the future of those engaged in activities connected with water and sewerage is secure, because those activities will still be with us. But that is true only up to a point because the nature of the private empires or vast organisations into which they will

go is not yet known. There is the matter of seniority and prospects and all the rest.
However, there are two important public bodies which will disappear, the British Waterways Board and the Water Resources Board. We have had no consultation paper issued yet about the future of either of these important bodies. I do not have to tell the House that if a man hears in December, 1971, that an organisation is to disappear, this has an effect on his attitude to his work. Many of these employees, nearly all of them, working for these important national bodies which have been operating with conspicuous success in the last five years or so, know that their future is no longer with the organisations.
They have not yet been told what will happen to the functions of these organisations because we have not had a consultation paper. I asked when we would have such a paper about the Water Resources Board on 21st April and I received a reply saying that such a paper would be issued shortly. I asked again on 26th July and again was told "shortly." Here we are, nearly at 3rd August, and we still have not had it. The effect upon the staff, of course, is serious. I suggest that if any private organisation looked upon its staff like this there would no doubt be industrial trouble. For the life of me I cannot think why the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend have been so dilatory in dealing with this. I will not talk about that now because these matters have been covered by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West.
I want to deal with the Water Resources Board. Time and again hon. Members have emphasised that water is a national property, and so it is. The Board has worked with conspicuous success over the last few years. It may well have set a pattern for the world. It has brought together a great deal of technical expertise, it has had a balance of advice and powers with teeth and it has gained a great reputation. Now it is to disappear. Its functions are to be taken over in each area by the regional water authorities. When they try to work out the national plan, to whom do they turn? I suppose only to the Department of the Environment and only to the Minister who acts as a referee,


among all his many other duties. I know that the hon. Gentleman will know what I mean when I say that he has to deal with four or five problems simultaneously. I do not believe that the Minister or any Ministry is suited to this rôle.
To break up the Board in an age when, world wide, we talk about pollution and the conservation of resources seems to be an act of indescribable folly. Even if it is not technical folly, it seems to be political folly. There has been no explanation, no consultation paper. If the hon. Gentleman reads the previous annual reports of the board he will realise that his proposal will bring condemnation from scientists from all over the world, if not in this country. All politicians will be tarred with the same brush and accused of arrogance and ignorance in an area about which the British public and the public throughout the world is particularly sensitive.
Finally—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I must draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that Mr. Speaker has made repeated appeals for hon. Members to keep their speeches within bounds which will permit discussion for no fewer than 12 debates which are to follow this one. If an hon. Member occupies the Floor for half an hour or more it is obviously not possible for other important subjects to be debated.

Mr. Spearing: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for mentioning something of which I was not aware, because I was not here when Mr. Speaker mentioned this.
I will put my final question to the hon. Gentleman. When he replies, will he mention what has happened to the recommendations of the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution concerning Section 12 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1961? He has issued a consultation paper related to this but that does not make it clear whether the Government are accepting the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker and to the House for apparently taking up rather more time than is generally necessary in this sort of debate. In one sense, however, I make

no apology. This debate should not have been necessary. Every point I have made on the consultation papers had to be made, and if the Government had gone about the matter in the right way this debate would not have been necessary.
I apologise to the House for the length of my speech, but I hope that it realises why it was necessary. I am sure that many people will read the reports of this debate with great interest.

11.35 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): The debate has been characterised by two types of speech. First, we had the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden), who devoted himself mainly to one subject, and covered it well and succinctly. During the last half hour we have been treated to a speech by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) which was full of knowledge, I concede, but which attempted to cover the whole of the water front, making it impossible for me to deal with all the points which the hon. Gentleman raised and which it would be, in my judgment, selfish of me to try to answer since many other hon. Members wish to deal with other subjects. I will gladly write to the hon. Gentleman and deal with many of the points that he properly raised, but I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not follow him into all the highways and byways or, should I say, lagoons and tributaries up which he sought to take us.
The debate is about the reorganisation of water and sewerage services, but my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West dealt primarily with the canals. However, I am sure that he will accept that I must deal with some of the other points raised, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins).
May I first say why the Government felt it right to introduce these radical and extensive proposals for the reorganisation of water and sewerage services? First, we are in the process of the reorganisation of local government, and in 1974 many local authorities which now administer water and sewerage services will either cease to exist or will be amalgamated with others. It is therefore necessary to decide


how those services at present rendered by those authorities shall be managed in future. It was for that reason that the last Government, quite rightly, set up the Central Advisory Water Committee to offer advice on the future. Its report was published last year, and our proposals for reorganisation of the water services are, in large part, the Government's response to the recommendations it made in the light of local government reform.
But the second and much more important reason why we are putting forward our proposals is that something not far short of a water resources crisis could arise unless we take urgent action to prevent it. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West, who speaks with great knowledge on this subject, is fully aware of that. For far too long we have taken our water for granted, as something which just happens whenever we turn on the tap. We are also inclined to take sewage disposal for granted, despite the fact that getting rid of our wastes, industrial and domestic, is becoming steadily more difficult and expensive.
The essential point requiring reorganisation is that the demand for water is growing very fast. We consume approximately 50 gallons per head per day. Within 30 years or less, we shall need 100 gallons per head per day. Yet our water resources are limited. As a small and densely populated island, we have fewer untapped water supplies in proportion to our numbers than any country in Europe save only Malta and Holland. It therefore follows that we must use and re-use our limited water supplies much more efficiently. We need to go in, as my hon. Friend said, for more water transfer. We need to develop new sources of ground water, perhaps desalination if that should prove feasible. We need, above all, to clean our rivers so that we may drink much more of the water which already has been used before.
When we look at the water resources of this country I think we must accept that re-use of water will be more and more essential if our people are to have enough to drink. Already there are a number of water undertakings in this country where demand from consumers exceeds the reliable yield from their present sources—East Anglia is one example—and at any time, even in a wet summer like this, there is risk that a

long dry spell could lead to water shortages in those areas, producing restrictions on industry, and, ultimately, hazards to health. Indeed, by 1980, on present resources, and given present-day trends in demand, these risks could exist not merely in certain areas but over large parts of the country. I think it only right that I should give the House fair warning of that possibility.
It is to meet this situation of demand outstripping supply that the Government have developed a comprehensive new water strategy which, essentially, has four main elements. One of them is money. In England alone the Government are committed to a quite massive injection of capital expenditure in water services—no less than £1,450 million over the next five years—and this vast expenditure represents at constant prices an increase of nearly 50 per cent. over that of the previous five years.
The second element is pollution. We hope—indeed, we expect—to be able to clean up our main rivers by the early 1980s, and we are already making good progress. The first volume of the Pollution of Rivers Survey recorded great and, I think, gratifying progress. There has been a substantial reduction in the mileage of grossly polluted rivers and a welcome increase in the lengths of clean rivers. I need refer only to the River Thames, where the return of fish is one demonstration of the progress which is being made. Volume II of the Pollution Survey, which will be published later in the year, shows that this progress is being more than maintained and that some of our dirtiest rivers, for example the Trent and the Tame, are responding well to the heavy investment which is being made in new sewerage works, but if we are to obtain potable water from our rivers we need now to go further and faster.
That is why over recent months we have set out our proposals for further action against pollution of our watercourses. We expect to bring under full control the discharge of effluents to the sea and tidal estuaries and to introduce sterner control of all activities which may pollute underground water, and new precautions against accidental pollution of ground and surface water such as happened a few days ago in the Stour River. We are also now committed to bringing


all discharges of trade effluents to sewers under full control.
Money is, therefore, available and so are our proposals to protect the quality of the water in our rivers, but that is not enough. We also need better organisation, and that is the third dimension of our policy.
The crucial point is that all the interlocking problems of water and sewerage services need to be looked at together over extensive areas. Perhaps I may give one small personal example. One of the tasks I was set by the Secretary of State was to seek ways and means of assisting the Mersey and Weaver River Authority to clean up the great Mersey Estuary. I went to Liverpool and called a meeting of all those local authorities which put effluent and domestic sewage into the estuary. We needed Liverpool Town Hall to accommodate them. There were more than 100 separate local authorities which attended that meeting, all of which had separate priorities and different approaches to the sewerage problems of the Mersey. One authority would say that it would clean up its effluent only after the next-door authority had cleaned up its effluent.
What is apparent from dealing with this problem is that in attempting to clean a river system or estuary, it is necessary to have a comprehensive plan on which all concerned, both on the sewerage and on the water supply side, will work together to a common theme. That is the rationale of the water reorganisation proposals we put forward.
We plan large, all-purpose regional water authorities. This follows the unanimous recommendation of the Central Advisory Water Committee, whose 27 members represented all the various interests involved in the water industry. The regional water authorities will combine functions which are at present exercised by river authorities, by statutory water undertakers and by local authorities in their capacity as sewerage authorities. I confirm that a substantial proportion of the membership of each authority will be drawn from local government; the remainder will represent industry, agriculture, amenities, recreation and, of course, consumer interests.
At the same time we recognise that while the regional authorities would have

to take over responsibility for sewage disposal, local authorities ought to retain local sewerage functions other than those which the regional water authorities need for the efficient discharge of their duties.
The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) had much to say about local authorities and the consultation documents in respect of possible charging for water. He rightly said that the consultation document refers, among other things, to the possibility of metering. But what the consultation document is bound to do is to set out the options. Metering was one of the options for consideration by future water authorities, to put in in their own areas if in all the circumstances they judge it to be appropriate. But the hon. Gentleman was wrong to suggest—and in so doing was misleading the House—that the Government had made up their minds on this matter and were seeking to impose metering on water authorities, the public or anybody else. A consultation document, by definition, sets out the options, and we are interested to learn the opinions of those who have read it—not least the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, whose views I have gladly noted.

Mr. David Stoddart: Do I take it that the hon. Gentleman is giving the assurance that the Government are not giving a lead, or trying to give a lead in any way to the regional water authority to insist on charging? Since the document apparently contained only suggestions, why did it not contain other suggestions as well—because that which I put forward was a perfectly legitimate one, despite the opinion which was expressed by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins).

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman will know that a whole range of considerations about finance and the economics of the future regional water authorities is set out in great detail. The matter requires the fullest consideration. One of the whole series of options is metering, and it is proper, and indeed necessary, that the opinions of the water industry should be sought. We have taken note of their opinions and we shall take note of others. Indeed, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have taken careful note of the opinions he has expressed in this debate this evening.
There have been comments about the private statutory water companies and suggestions that the Government were inconsistent in their treatment of them. I do not accept that. The essential reasons why the private statutory water companies are to be retained are not only that they do a good job but that they are prepared to work more or less as agents of the new regional water authorities under effective arrangements made with them; and secondly, it would have been necessary to compensate those who own them and who, over the years, have invested in those companies a large sum of money. I can see no possible reason why the taxpayer should be asked to provide a very large sum, running into hundreds of millions of £s, to compensate the expropriation of statutory water companies which are doing a perfectly good job. It is entirely right that they should remain doing that job.
The municipal water companies are already in the public sector. There is no question of coining money in order to take them over. There is another essential difference in that the statutory water companies are perfectly prepared to act as agents of the regional water authorities where proper; but it is a very different thing to ask elective local authorities to serve only as agents of executive bodies arising in large part from the Secretary of State's appointment. Constitutionally, there is all the difference in the world in those two things.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West was concerned about canals. I shall quickly deal with the various important points he made. The Government have now committed themselves to making the widest possible use of not only our canals but all our water space—not merely for water supply, sewerage and drainage but as an environmental amenity and recreational asset. We have long since recognised the need to plan the use of our land. The time has now come to adopt a similar approach to our water space. We can do this by opening up much more widely the rivers, canals and reservoirs for the public's use and enjoyment. We can do it by developing all this water space, whenever it is appropriate, as a thing of amenity and beauty in town and country alike. It is also right that

we should use our water space, wherever appropriate, as we have used our mountains and forests—as reserves of calm and quiet, where the wildlife of these islands is given the chance to survive.
This is what I would describe as the fourth dimension of our national water policy. The Government intend that far better use should be made of the rivers, canals, reservoirs and lakes, for the benefit of sport and recreation, conservation and amenity and, wherever appropriate, commerce. To help meet the tremendous demand for water recreation, it is our intention to make this a statutory duty upon the new water authorities. We shall shortly be circulating a further consultation paper describing how we intend this new policy to be applied.

Mr. Barry Jones: Do I understand from the Minister's remarks that his Department intends to construct, for instance, a barrage across the Dee estuary?

Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman can construe that from my remarks, he is a very good construer indeed.
The House will forgive me if tonight I simply indicate some of the specific points in the consultation paper.
First, under the aegis of the National Water Council there will be a new national body, the Water Space Amenity Commission, closely linked not only with the Regional Water Authorities but with the Sports Council and the Countryside Commission. This new body will promote the development of all forms of water space for amenity, recreation and navigation. One of its particular concerns will be the needs of pleasure cruising on the rivers and canals.
Secondly, whilst the regional water authorities will normally be expected to be financially self-supporting, we accept that there is a national interest involved in the general improvement of water amenities, and in particular in the preservation and development of waterways for navigational purposes. We therefore intend that substantially increased Government funds should be made available for these purposes.
Thirdly, the existing statutory classification of the waterways will be left intact. The regional water authorities will therefore have the same duties as the British


Waterways Board now has to maintain them for commercial and cruising craft.
Fourthly, there is navigation. My hon. Friend, who dealt with navigation in some detail, knows as well as I that it would be possible for us to cross swords about all the complex legal issues. I hope he will simply accept from me now that it is the Government's intention that the forthcoming legislation shall contain clear rights for the public, in suitable craft and in a suitable manner, to navigate all those waterways classified as "commercial" and "cruising", and further that the regional water authorities shall, with safeguards made necessary by the practical limitations on the continuous maintenance of absolute standards, become responsible for maintaining the ability for these rights to be exercised. These rights will supplement the powers of enforcement provided by Section 106 of the 1968 Act which will be maintained with some minor adaptations.
I hope my hon. Friend will accept that there is a good deal of progress there and that it reflects the process of consultation we have been having with the interested parties—not least with the Inland Waterways Association. I am also conscious of the need to safeguard the interests of the staff, and they will be properly protected.
I should emphasise to the hon. Member for Acton that the canal system will not be fragmented. The canal classification system will he preserved and the duties associated with it will be imposed upon the regional water authorities. Freight carrying on the waterways will be developed wherever it makes sense to do it.
In conclusion, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West for raising this important issue. My hon. Friend will understand that it is not possible in a short debate at night to deal with all the matters that have been raised. However, I assure him that I would not be a party to the policy that my Department has put forward and that my right hon. Friend is recommending to the House if I were not firmly convinced that it will mean a better deal for all those who cruise and enjoy sport and recreation on the waterways.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. Before calling the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones), I should draw to the attention of the House the fact that Mr Speaker has made an appeal for short speeches. I repeat that appeal in the interests of the 12 subjects which have still to be debated.

EMPLOYMENT (WALES)

11.59 p.m.

Mr. Alec Jones: I suppose I should apologise for delaying the House at this late hour, but in all honesty I cannot and do not apologise. If my speech becomes somewhat lengthy, it is because the subject which I propose to raise—unemployment in Wales—is of such urgent importance and concern to the people of Wales.
I know that we are near the end of what has been an arduous parliamentary session. Many hon. Members are looking forward to a holiday and a reasonable period of rest. However, for 51,496 Welshmen and women the tragedy is that they have had too long a period of rest. It has been more than rest; it has been enforced idleness which the Government have imposed upon them because of their failure not only to fulfil their election promises, when they pledged themselves to reduce unemployment at a stroke, but to deal with the important political, economic and social consequences of extremely high and long-lasting unemployment in Wales.
I am glad to have the opportunity of debating this subject on the Supplementary Estimates. I should have welcomed a massive increase in the Estimate for the Department of Employment if that increase would have foreshadowed a real attack on unemployment not only in Wales but throughout the United Kingdom. It is true that the figure of 51,496 unemployed in Wales includes 1,100 school leavers and 2,486 adult students, but the adult student figures must not be used as a means of pretending that the situation is better than it really is. We must realise that the figure of 51,496 does not include the thousands of school leavers who are leaving or who have left since 10th July, when the figures were compiled.
The August figures are more likely to be far higher than the July figures. However, not only are both figures unacceptably high to the Welsh, but the prospects for the immediate future are even worse. I refer the Minister of State to a parliamentary Question which was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) in 1970. My hon. Friend asked about the job prospects in Wales. He was told that on 30th May, 1970, there were 30,900 jobs in prospect. That was at a time when unemployment was 33,000. Even those figures were considered by my hon. Friends to be completely unacceptable. However, on 30th May, 1972, there were only 18,300 jobs in prospect with over 50,000 unemployed. What hope is there, using those figures, for the remaining 32,000? We need an answer to that question from the Minister of State, who represents not only the Welsh Office but the whole of the Government.
It gives me no pleasure to have to remind the House of the tragic figure of unemployment in Wales. I do so merely to indicate the size of the task facing the Government in the almost vain hope that the Government will stir themselves into some action to cure the situation. The Secretary of State for Wales is the Government spokesman for Wales, and we would wish that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was the spokesman for Wales inside the Government. If he were speaking for Wales inside the Government, advocating a reduction in unemployment and the policies to bring it about, we would feel far more satisfied with his rôle.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made many speeches in the House and in the Welsh Grand Committee about unemployment. Usually we have heard from him a long series of pious platitudes meaning nothing, and at the end of each speech the unemployment situation has been worse. I have three wonderful quotations from him. On 19th December, 1970, the Welsh Grand Committee debated the effects on the Welsh economy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
The Committee will be pleased to know that industrial development in Wales, far from flagging, is increasing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,

Welsh Grand Committee, 9th December, 1970; c. 8.]
At that time unemployment was 3·8 per cent. in Wales. On 28th April, 1971, speaking to the Welsh Grand Committee on the economic situation in Wales and Monmouthshire, the Secretary of State, referring to further Government measures, said:
They will enable us to look ahead to the future with enhanced confidence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Welsh Grand Committee, 28th April, 1971; c. 17.]
By that time, the unemployment figure in Wales had risen to 4·3 per cent. On 9th March, 1972, speaking in the House in a debate on Government policy for Wales, the Secretary of State, speaking largely to the same hon. Members who had been present in the Welsh Grand Committee on those previous occasions, said:
With the prospects of continued growth in the United Kingdom, the opportunities are now very real."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 1690.]
By that time the unemployment had risen to 5·3 per cent. in Wales.
Indeed, those of us who truly represent Wales in this House are almost afraid to hear the Secretary of State speak about unemployment in Wales because every time he opens his mouth the position worsens considerably. I am not being disrespectful to him as a person, or being rude to him personally, when I say that either he should shut up or he should speak up—speak up for Wales and make the Government's actions match the eloquence of his own speeches on the problem of unemployment in the Principality.
If one spends an hour or so in the Library or going through the HANSARD reports of Questions in recent months, one can gather masses of facts and statistics to show how Government policies have failed Wales in the past two years. I am sure that in this debate many of my hon. Friends will give their own facts and figures to support their arguments. But we do not need to present facts and figures because we on this side, when it comes to talking about unemployment in Wales, can speak from our own experience. So many of us not only represent Welsh constituencies but reside in our constituencies and are closer to the


ordinary people of Wales than is any member of the Government.
Last Monday I invited the Secretary of State to pay a visit to the Rhondda in my constituency. He told me that he had no plans to do so at the moment. We might almost say that we do not care whether he comes there or not, but it is a pity that he does not spend more time in constituencies like the Rhondda. If he came to the Rhondda and many other similar constituencies, he would learn a great deal about unemployment and the problems which afflict our people.
I speak entirely about my own constituency, but what I have to say is typical of many other areas of Wales at present. The Minister of State should look at some of the figures in Rhondda. In June 1970, when this Government took office, after spending years criticising the previous Labour Government for a high level of unemployment, and when they were elected to power on a promise to reduce unemployment, in fact unemployment in the Rhondda was 1,685. This has risen in the two years to July, 1972, to 2,130, an increase of 26 per cent., and an increase brought about by a Government pledge to reduce unemployment—a sick joke for the people of Rhondda and of Wales in general.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: At a stroke.

Mr. Alec Jones: At a stroke, as my hon. Friend says—and it is not only the unemployment figures which are causing trouble.
We have advance factories. One is at Treherbert. That is empty. It has never been occupied and has been idle for two years, more idle than the Secretary of State has been for the last two years, if that were possible. We have a second advance factory at Ynyshir, previously tenanted and in production when the Labour Party was in Government. Today it is empty and the workers are redundant, and that is a euphemism for saying that they join the dole queues at Tonypandy and Treorchy. Last week the factory of Ray-o-Vac, at Treorchy since 1946, was completely closed and another 150 redundancies were announced, to be effective in September. They are another 150 not yet included in any published statistics. So I say to the Minister of State that the

product of two years of Tory rule for Rhondda is 1,580 men unemployed and only 35 vacancies available, so that 45 men are chasing every job available.
There is a similar pattern throughout Wales. From June, 1970 to July, 1972, 32,130 redundancies have been announced in Wales and whether one picks the big cities like Swansea with 2,570 redundancies or smaller ones like Caernarvon with 650, whether one goes north, south, east or west, throughout Wales the picture is the same—more redundancies in two years than in any previous period. That is the absolute condemnation of this Government and of all the policies they have so vainly tried to pursue in the last two years.
In all honesty, it is because of the unemployment figures and the redundancies that we welcome the Government's belated decision on investment incentives in the Industry Bill. We welcome them because we know the figures of unemployment and we know that behind those statistics lie a great deal of human suffering and tragedy. We welcome the Government's decision. We are sorry it took so long, but we particularly welcome the decision to return to investment grants although the Government have changed the name and now call them regional development grants.
Those of us here will well recall that in December, 1970, when we had our debate in Welsh Grand Committee, the Secretary of State for Wales, still occupying the same position today, said:
Investment grants, which have been abolished, were a very expensive way of encouraging investment and have not, in practice, achieved their objectives"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Welsh Grand Committee, 9th December, 1970, c. 5.]
It is to those that we are returning.
But in the meantime, having cut off investment grants and having reduced the level of investment and having increased the number of men and women in Wales who are unemployed, the Government see the consequences of their own folly. We welcome their conversion and that of even the Secretary of State. But his delay has greatly harmed the Welsh economy and injured the people we represent.
It is a tragedy that while we have had to wait for the Government to learn the folly of their ways, unemployment


has increased and industrial development has slumped. Measured by the issue of industrial development certificates, it has fallen from 280 certificates issued in 1970 to a miserable 85 issued in 1971.
There are two especially depressing features of this unemployment. I refer to the problems of the school leavers and the long-term unemployed. There are 1,100 unemployed school leavers in Wales. But that is the figure for 10th July and most schools in Wales close after that date, so that the July school leavers were not included in that figure. The August figures will show the true size of the problem and they are bound to be worse than the July figures.
The Western Mail has been running a campaign—the consumer campaign. In a long article, it wrote of the need for careers guidance in schools in Wales. As an ex-school teacher, I know something about this subject. I know how tragic it is when boys and girls—particularly boys, and I taught in a boys school—leave school without being able to find work. The article in the Western Mail quoted a headmaster in South Wales. Speaking about careers guidance, he said:
Careers guidance? Don't make me laugh. There are just not enough jobs. It's a waste of time. If a few of my leavers get dull, boring, repetitive, poorly paid jobs, with little or no chance of promotion, they'll be the lucky ones. The others will drift.
The lucky ones are those who will get the miserable jobs. The others will be lucky to get a job at all.
The greatest disservice that we could do these young people would be to deny them the opportunity to work, to exercise their intelligence, to stand on their own two feet, to feel that they are making a contribution to their own families and the society in which they live. The Prime Minister is a great one for making speeches about one nation; but all the talk of one nation is drivel and cant if we fail these young people, if we fail to give them the chance to exercise their right to work.
I feel especially strongly about school leavers. I have two suggestions which could help, and I hope that the Minister of State will take note of them. In the Rhondda we have a college of further education where for the last two years we have been running training courses for the acquisition of limited skills in

the engineering and building construction industries. Both these courses have been extremely successful. Is the Minister sure that the Government are doing all they can in this connection? Is he sure that we are using any spare capacity which exists in the colleges of further education in Wales to provide this type of training for our unemployed school leavers? The Government should give the strongest possible lead here. They should provide maintenance grants for any students who are willing and able to attend such courses. They should urge every college of further education in Wales to bring forward suitable schemes of training for school leavers.
I want to say a word about young people in connection with apprenticeships. I wrote a letter to BOAC Engine Overhaul Ltd. and I was staggered at the reply that I received. The reply was:
This year in order to improve our financial situation … we were forced to make certain economies among which was the decision not to recruit apprentices.…
For a public body faced with the level of unemployment that we have in Wales and, indeed, in the United Kingdom as a whole, to say that it would stop taking on apprentices is a public scandal.
I fear that this decision not to take on apprentices applies not only to BOAC Engine Overhaul Ltd. at Treforest but might well apply to local authorities and other public bodies in Wales. Surely the least that the Minister of State can do is to send a circular to every local authority and public body in the Principality using whatever pressures he can and urging them to take on as many apprentices this year as is humanly possible.
I turn to the second of my grievances in connection with unemployment. I refer to the long-term unemployed. The latest figures relating to the length of unemployment are those which were published in January of this year. In Wales 15 per cent. of our unemployed have been unemployed for more than six months, and a further 20 per cent. have been unemployed for more than 12 months. The long-term unemployed and their families are in the greatest distress. They have the lowest income. Any savings they had have been spent. Any redundancy payments they received have long since gone. They have exhausted benefits such as earnings related benefit. If they have


been unemployed for more than 12 months they have even exhausted their right to unemployment benefit. They have become completely dependent upon supplementary benefits.
It is perfectly true that families can postpone buying new clothes and footwear. They can postpone the replacement of household utensils and that sort of thing. This can be delayed, but it cannot be put off for ever. At some time or other, their need for clothing and for replacements becomes desperate, and it is at that time that the families of the long-term unemployed suffer great hardship.
There is more than financial hardship. It is a savage blow to the pride, the self-respect and the dignity of these men to be unemployed for a long time. I read of an unemployed ex-Service man who said, "If you fall out of work today, if you are much over 40 all you can look forward to is a long and grinding stand in the dole queue". A man really is his job: if one takes away a man's occupation, one begins to chip at his identity. Take away a man's ability to maintain his family, and his manhood itself is diminished. It is far more than a matter of financial hardship. The sociological aspect of long-term unemployment ought to be the Government's concern.

Mr. Barry Jones: And the psychological.

Mr. Alec Jones: Yes, and the psychological aspect as well.
There is urgent need to give special priority to the long-term unemployed. It can be done, and it ought to be done. The Government are proud—justly proud, I believe—of some of the increases in public expenditure. It was a dirty word in 1970, but public expenditure is now acceptable even to a Conservative Government, and I welcome their conversion. The Secretary of State has many times boasted of the increase in public expenditure. We have had announcements about the urban aid programme, and we have further announcements about Operation Eyesore.
Cannot we use the money being devoted to those schemes to ensure that at least some of our long-term unemployed are put back into employment? Can

we not advise the local authorities of Wales that the Government would above all else favour the use of the money on manpower rather than on machines to do work which men could otherwise do? We are cleaning up many parts of Wales, and we are all pleased to see the process going on, but is there not here an opportunity to use that public expenditure to reduce the level of unemployment? Could we not say to the local authorities, "For heaven's sake, look at the long-term unemployed and ensure that they are taken into the fullest consideration when you decide whether to employ machines or men on certain of the jobs in these programmes"?
Wales has had considerable and bitter experience of unemployment. We have had considerable and bitter experience of unemployment and Tory Governments, and for most of Wales unemployment and Tory Governments have become synonymous.
On 9th December, 1970, the Secretary of State for Wales told the Welsh Grand Committee:
… we
—the Royal "we", but he was speaking for the Government then—
… we reject the shameful waste which has occurred in the last six years in terms of unemployment …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Welsh Grand Committee, 9th December, 1970; c. 17.]
The "shameful waste" to which he referred never once rose above 3·9 per cent., and if there were critics of that figure, the criticism came from Labour back benchers more than from anyone else. If the phrase "shameful waste" were the right one to describe unemployment which never rose above 3·9 per cent., what about today, when the Welsh unemployment figure is 4·5 per cent.? It is 4·9 per cent. seasonally adjusted; 4·9 per cent. excluding school leavers; 4·9 per cent. excluding adult students, and 4·9 per cent. after allowing for every possible excuse which the Government can offer. There are more than 50,000 Welsh men and women who want to know from the Minister of State what the Government are going to do about the problem.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I compliment the hon. Member for Rhondda,


West (Mr. Alec Jones) on the forceful way in which he has quite properly drawn attention to the industrial and employment problems of Wales in general and the Rhondda in particular. He rightly emphasised those points which seemed to him of particular importance, and I feel sure that my hon. Friend, and indeed my right hon. and learned Friend on studying what has been said today, will consider very carefully the matters which have been raised.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that for the individual concerned unemployment is a particular kind of ordeal and one which, in family terms, is extremely difficult to support with dignity. Like the hon. Gentleman, I sincerely hope that in the months ahead we shall see a distinct up-turn in the employment prospects, particularly in those areas like the Rhondda which, for a long time, have suffered considerably more than other parts of the United Kingdom, and more even than other parts of Wales.
There are one or two things which I should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman, and I am not trying to deny the validity of many of his arguments. He took us back to June, 1970 and said that at that time there were 1,685 unemployed in the Rhondda area. I think he agrees that that was a considerable figure, and he says that there has been an increase since then of 26 per cent. I accept that that is a move in the wrong direction. The figure has increased by about 445, and the hon. Gentleman says that that represents a considerable number based on the figure of 1,685 in 1970.
While in no way denying the validity of the hon. Gentleman's argument, may I remind him that for a considerable period before a certain event in June, 1970, when there was a change of Government, there had been a down-turn in employment. Since devaluation there had been a tendency in the United Kingdom for unemployment in certain industries to increase. I know the hon. Gentleman does not agree, but that is a fact, and it was accompanied by something just as serious.
We inherited a serious inflationary situation, to which we have still not found a solution. The incoming Government were faced with a serious problem, because it is extremely difficult to find a solution for an inflationary situation

which does not in some way make it difficult to sustain what the hon. Gentleman would describe as full employment. It is very difficult to sustain full employment while taking measures to deal with the different evil of inflation. That was one of the Government's major problems.
The hon. Gentleman next contrasted the value of grants and allowances. There is a good deal of evidence that during the past two years the amount of industry which would have moved into development areas would in any case have been less, because of the industrial problems even of the Midlands and the areas from which factories tend to move. Whether we had had grants or allowances during that period, there would have been a strict limit on the number of firms which would have contemplated that kind of move.
But we are now more hopeful. We are now combining grants and allowances in some cases, and have a wide array of incentives more varied in total than ever. They should be a powerful incentive to any industries contemplating development to have a serious look at Wales, including the areas to which the hon. Gentleman referred, as a possible place where they may develop. I sincerely hope that they will be a means of attracting the sort of industry we need. It will not be easy, but at any rate we have a more hopeful atmosphere now in this respect.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not disparage what I shall now suggest. All over the industrial world the modernisation of industry is proceeding, and new methods are being introduced. This has meant that much of industry is less labour-intensive. As we have seen from the experience of North America and many European countries, industry can now produce just as much with fewer employees. This creates a difficult situation, which all parties and experts, technical as well as political, will need to study very carefully. We shall have to devise methods of providing incentives for those industries which perhaps have not yet grown, which has not yet emerged. They may be in the service sector. We need not look only to the manufacturing sector. There may be new industries which we hardly suspect yet. We may be near to development in new directions. We want to study every


conceivable alternative, because many of our older industries, and even many of the industries developed since the war, are today less capable of providing employment owing to the newer kind of production, the newer mechanisation and technical innovation. This is a difficulty not only in Rhondda, not only in Wales, and not only in Europe, but in much of the industrial world overseas.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware of the calculation that by 1985 half the working population of the United States is liable to be employed in industries which have not yet been invented?

Mr. Gower: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is the point I sought to make.
Much of industry today has a lower manpower requirement owing to technical innovation. We can be hopeful that the new industries to which my hon. Friend referred will increasingly provide new opportunities for employment in the years ahead. But, as the hon. Gentleman has said, we have an urgent problem, and we cannot wait.
The new incentives that the Government have introduced
—

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Too late.

Mr. Gower: It is never too late in this respect. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish the Government not to have made changes. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not disparage what has been done recently. Some things are new; some, on different lines, have been tried by other Governments. Some are combined with the new kinds of fiscal incentives as well as the more direct incentives to which he referred. Here again, the inflationary situation is still the important key. It is still vitally important that inflation should be contained. It is not an easy task and any of us would be foolish to suggest that it was. It is most unwise for anyone to suggest that the remedies for these twin problems are easy. Several experts have suggested remedies which, when tried, have not been so efficacious as forecast.
I am not a pessimist and I see hopeful signs. We now have a better system of communications in Wales than we had a

few years ago and both Governments are responsible for that. We are continuing to improve those communications and that is of vital importance to our industry. That is a great incentive to industry to move and it is also increasing our accessibility, not only to our sources of raw materials but also to our potential markets. This may be of great advantage in the immediate future.
I am sure my hon. Friend accepts the importance of this. None of us wants to see one man unemployed if we can avoid it, but we can achieve success only if there is a spirit of determination throughout industry. Since the war we have suffered from a malaise difficult to define. Our competitors in Europe have sometimes a more vivid approach and a sense of direction which we have lacked. We shall need these things; we shall need a new sense in the community, among management and workers because it is only in that way, with the utmost Government help, that we can succeed.

12.44 a.m.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Barry) uses words as if somehow by uttering them they had the meaning he gives them. He used the word "facts" and says that they are irrefutable. What he is saying when he talks about "facts" is something which is refutable. For example, he said there was a rising trend of unemployment in 1970. There was not. Statistically it is not true. In 1970 unemployment in Wales was falling. It continued to fall throughout 1970 until January, 1971, when it took a turn for the worse, and it has never improved since.
The hon. Gentleman ought to check his facts before using them. The fact is that we have had a period of 18 months to two years of high and continued rising unemployment. The odd month of cold comfort which the Secretary of State or the Minister of State occasionally likes to draw upon cannot destroy the unfortunate and sad state of affairs that we have had a high and continuing rate of unemployment over the last 18 months.
The hon. Member also wishes to shrug it off. He likes to talk about the deep malaise in society, he likes to spread it from 1945 to 1971. He likes to pretend it is not something that has happened in the last 18 months. That is not the


language of his right hon. and learned Friend on the three occasions he has spoken in major Welsh debates. We have had marvellous, false silver linings on each occasion. We have had no reference to malaise, to gloomy prospects and the new sense of purpose. We have had hopeful promises. He should have added one more to the catalogue.
The Minister will recall our exchanges on Monday when a number of us pressed him on the question of school leavers. We were told, rather rudely, that we were not listening to what he said. We were told that we had not noticed the prospects over the last six months. Apparently we should have looked at the unemployment figures for the month before when they were lower. We were told to look at the trend over the last six months. We have done so, and we find that we have had the most staggering level of unemployment one can imagine. During the whole of my adult life the unemployment figures have never been as high as they have been in the last six months. The trend over the last six months fills us with sadness and the most terrible sense of depression.
The other thing we are told is that unemployment is seasonal. The Government use this marvellous word "seasonal". The point which must be made about seasonally adjusted figures is that they are based not on the number of people who are unemployed but on the assumption that the extra influx of people to the unemployment register will disappear within a month or so. It is all very well to use the phrase "seasonally adjusted" when there is a reasonable expectation that there will be seasonal trends. But one of the most staggering features of the unemployment figures of the last year or two has been how unseasonal they have turned out to be. One might coin the phrase that we have "unemployed men for all seasons".
This is not just a temporary phenomenon with school leavers and graduates coming on to the unemployment register for a brief time. Seasonally adjusted figures were all very well when the seasons behaved as they had traditionally behaved. But in 1971 and 1972 they have not behaved in that way. That is the frightening feature of unemployment in Wales. We should not be adjusting the figures seasonally because the sad fact is

that a large number of school leavers and graduates
—[Interruption.] I was not referring to the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. John Stradling Thomas). I do not know whether he was a graduate. If he was, I hope that he was never unemployed, as a large number of graduates are now.
We probably have the best educated dole queue ever in Wales. A widow came to see me last Saturday about a certain problem, but as she was leaving she mentioned, very proudly, that her son had graduated with a good honours degree in geology from the University of Wales. She was very pleased that, as a result of scraping and saving, she had managed to put her son through college and that he had come out with a fine degree. She told me that he was searching for a job. The prospect of a job for him and for many other graduates in Wales is horrifying. Some of our best people are graduating on the pennies and savings of working-class people in South Wales and more and more people are going through college, some of whom I have had the pleasure of teaching, only to end up in the dole queue.
In September or October, what will happen to that geology graduate, the son of one of my constituents? He will have to drift out of South Wales. He will be another net loss to the population of Merthyr Tydvil. He, along with hundreds of thousands of others, will have to leave South Wales to find work in other parts of Britain—though, if he does, at the moment he will not find much of a job, but, more likely, only swell the dole queues in what were called the over-employment areas of the South-East and the Midlands.
The same applies to our school leavers. It was astonishing that the hon. Member for Barry should give us a brief lecture on the rôle of technology and the changes occurring because of technology and tell us that that is a factor which we must take into account. Of course it is, but what does he say to the fact that 50 per cent. of our school leavers in Wales go into jobs now without any form of training or apprenticeship, let alone training to fit them for the technological changes? It means that 50 per cent. of the school leavers enter dead-end jobs with no training prospects at all. On top of that is the fact that there is an increasingly


long queue of school leavers who have no prospects of jobs at all this year.
One of the saddest features of unemployment in Wales at present—indeed, in Britain, but particularly Wales—is that this is happening when we had thought that the dread image of mass unemployment had left us and that none of us, even in our most depressed moments, could raise again the spectre of mass unemployment. Yet it is a spectre which an increasing number of people, particularly in our mining valleys, once more are beginning to worry about and fear.
Hon. Members opposite, when they were in opposition, spent a lot of time criticising unemployment benefits in a snidish sort of way, and criticising redundancy payments, those copper handshakes we managed to give our people, but it is no pleasure to anyone to tell an 18-year-old or 19-year-old or a 55-year-old that in 1972 he is better off on the dole than he would have been in the 'thirties. Many might say so, and especially hon. Members opposite, but it is not a line I would take, although, obviously, in money terms one has less to worry about because of the impact of unemployment in 1972 than one had to worry about when there was unemployment in the 'thirties. In terms of basic needs the worry is rather less than it was in the 'thirties, but in terms of the sense of frustration it is not. To the young 17-year-old in Merthyr Tydvil whose first year after leaving school has to be spent on the dole the sense of frustration and bitterness is no less agonising than it was to anyone else 30 or 40 years ago, even though he may be less financially affected now by unemployment than he would have been then.
The new line which the hon. Member for Barry started to peddle, and it is perhaps a new theme of at least hon. Members on the back benches opposite, is, "It has nothing to do with us".
The Prime Minister believes that all these problems and their solution have nothing to do with this Government, but are all due to other factors such as inflation. In other words, he is saying that nothing the Government have done has made any contribution to unemploy-

ment. That is an absurd suggestion to make.
The whole of regional policy has been in limbo since 1970. First, we had the Davies cult of letting private enterprise do it all for us, stripped of all subsidies. The view then was that an abrasive, free-enterprise system would be the answer. But only 18 months later the whole philosophy crumbled. The loss of 30,000 jobs in Wales points to the failure of the Government's policies, and this is what we warned would happen.
Regional policy has been in tatters. Hon. Members opposite have mentioned the uncertainty among firms in not knowing what the situation was to be. Whenever have firms been able to plan in the last two years? First of all, they were deprived of grants in a savage and immediate way and the Welsh CBI, somewhat belatedly after the event, realised that these grants were invaluable to the Welsh economy.
I am now investigating a case in my constituency involving a firm which ordered machinery before the announcement about the change in policy was made. I took up the case with the remnants of the Investment Grants Office in Cardiff. I do not know whether that office, in view of the revised policy, will now be reinvigorated. The firm in question, because of delay in the delivery of the machinery, was deprived of the grants which it was expecting. That was the sort of crude cut-off and destruction of continuity and support that occurred. I should like to be told why tax allowances are supposed to be more selective than the old system.
The hon. Gentleman in his reply must answer the serious charge that over the last two years regional policy has been in limbo to such an extent that no firm knows where it stands. We now face the impact of the provisions of the Industry Bill. A number of its provisions are welcome, but I should like to be told what share of the total capital allocated under that Bill will come to Wales.
There have been welcome signs of development in one or two of the Welsh constituencies. In Merthyr in the last couple of months we have seen the prospect of over 1,000 jobs being successfully created. But that has happened despite Government action, rather than


because of it. Those jobs have been obtained by the patient cajoling, encouragement and hard work of the local authority and, I am pleased to say, by the helpful co-operation of the regional administration of the Department of Trade and Industry. It is against that background, and in spite of the indecision and confusion in the Government, that we have been able to pick up those jobs.
The hon. Member for Barry, the lone ranger, has ridden off. He spoke about capital-intensive and labour-intensive industries. It has been a great point on many occasions that we should not give aid to Esso at Milford Haven but that it should go to labour-intensive industries. What was the most labour-intensive incentive provided by the Labour Government? It was the regional employment premium. That was linked directly to the creation of jobs. That is the very thing which has been destroyed. It is to be removed from the armoury of regional policy. On top of that, we have not only the much graver, deeper uncertainties in many of the valley communities about job prospects on entry to the EEC, but also the feeling that, whatever the Government do, the natural push will be to the South East, away from the regions. This will not be countered by any direct detailed forms of intervention. The moment this was attempted, the West German Government would howl a protest.
The present Government are taking almost day-to-day decisions on regional employment, the Industry Bill, the grants issue and a host of things which have made them a disaster for the economy and employment prospects of Wales.
I refer briefly to the impact of something which might, on the surface, have seemed a good thing—the so-called tax-free period occurring with the implementation of the regressive value added tax. Just when perhaps we should be looking for another silver lining, as the Secretary of State says, along comes VAT and the confusion that will reign in the intermediate period.
I should like to read a letter I have received from a firm in my constituency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Ronald Russell): Order. I would remind the House that Mr. Speaker has appealed for short speeches in order that we can get

through most of the subjects on the list. The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for 20 minutes.

Mr. Rowlands: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I may have been speaking for 20 minutes, but it has been one of the shortest speeches this evening. I shall be concluding shortly, but I cannot let the Minister off lightly. I must tell him of the impact that the immediate implications of VAT will have on my constituency. I want to read part of a letter I received, which I sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer well over a month ago. I have not yet received a reply from the Chancellor. The letter states:
What the Government, or its advisers, have not realised apparently, is that, in anticipation of such a tax-free 'bonanza', retailers will hold off ordering in the last 3 months or so of 1972. in anticipation of placing huge orders for delivery during the tax-free period. They would then not place any orders for some considerable time after the introduction of VAT, because they would be living off the tax-free stocks which they had bought, and thus increase their profitability.
A situation which we have been dreading is now becoming a very real threat to our future, because, at a time of natural expansion in our Company, being the result of a great deal of hard work by many people over many years, we will be suddenly faced with the need to declare some redundancies among our full time staff, and very many among the hundred or so outdoor workers whom we employ in the Merthyr area, during the last 3 months of 1972.
Should not we add to the unemployment forecast for the concluding months of this year yet another uncertainty, another spanner to be thrown into the works, as a result of trying to implement one of the most regressive pieces of taxation we have had in recent years?
The letter continues:
We realise that we are too small for the Government or the country to care whether we exist or not.
The firm states that this problem is shared by a number of other firms.
I should like the Minister to reply in terms of statistics. Will he forecast the unemployment levels for this coming winter? If we are to be continually sustained on the repeated promises of what might happen, of the silver lining, the greater expansion around the corner, will he forecast what his economic planning division and statistics office predict for unemployment levels next winter?


Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that they will be as low as in the winters of 1969 and 1970? Those were not to our satisfaction, but by present-day standards we would love to get back to those levels about which we could then complain. Will the Minister stand at the Dispatch Box and back his general assertions with a categorical statement that this winter the level of unemployment will drop to the levels of 1969 and 1970? We ask for that categorical assurance as a basic statement of faith, as it were, that the hon. Gentleman is not conning us along as he and the Secretary of State have done in every debate on unemployment since 1970.
The truth is that the Government do not know what is going on in the economy. They have pulled and pushed the old traditional levers and nothing has happened. They have pumped some money into the economy, but the jobs which should have emerged from doing that have not materialised. In the 1950s when Lord Butler used to move those levers he could predict reasonably well that six months or a year later a certain number of jobs would be created and a certain level of employment achieved. In 1972, when we push and pull those levers, nothing happens. The saddest thing is that, whatever arguments we may use, Wales always suffers more than the more prosperous parts of the United Kingdom. The Minister of State must answer the basic charge that, whatever the deeper measures, trends and technological changes which have taken place, the direct actions of this Government have materially contributed to the highest levels of unemployment in Wales in the lifetime of the majority of hon. Members on this side of the House.

1.7 a.m.

Mr. Barry Jones: As a North Walian Member I will not attempt, at this unearthly hour, to rival the oratorial skills of my South Wales colleagues.
It is a tragedy that 51,000 Welsh people are out of work. Currently, North-East Wales has an enviable record of prosperity, acceptable environment, and relatively low unemployment figures. But in the wider context North Wales has considerable problems, because we

have not yet solved the problem of the older unemployed miner and quarryman.
In my constituency workers earn their living from three highly vulnerable industries—steel, textiles and aerospace. Each is a cyclical industry regarding demand, and each suffers from a bewildering change of technologies and increasingly strong foreign competition. East Flint-shire's major industries are now unsafe. My fear is of a rapid rise in unemployment rates because all three industries could quite easily shed labour in large quantities at the same time.
Most of us know that the British Steel Corporation is seriously considering the cessation of steelmaking at Shotton steelworks. At least 6,000 men could lose their jobs as a direct consequence. In addition, 1,750 men could lose their jobs in the contractors' section of the steelworks. The total of approximately 8,000 jobs is formidable, and the prospect of seeing these men in the dole queue is horrific.
I should like briefly to examine the situation in the Shotton Employment Exchange group. Of the 6,000 likely direct redundancies from the open-hearth furnace closures, 4,470 would come from the Shotton group. In these conditions there would, therefore, be an unemployment rate of approximately 15·5 per cent., assuming that today's unemployment figure remains constant. If we add the 1,200 men employed by the contractors of the Shotton steel works who are registered at the Shotton Group, we have a total of nearly 6,000 unemployed in the Shotton area. Approximately 18 per cent. are unemployed. That colossal figure is arrived at because there is a 75 per cent. concentration of the steelworks' work force in the Shotton area.
It has been estimated that in the Shotton Exchange Group area at least 18,000 people, the likely unemployed men and their families, will feel the sharp edge of the corporation's axe. No community can suffer that sort of crippling blow even over several years. It can be said in answer to this point that Flintshire could be made a special development area, but how much Government investment will be needed to reemploy this great army of redundant steel men? Most of the men have no other marketable skill than their unique steel experience.
At nearby Wrexham, millions upon millions of pounds have been spent on the tyre and cable industry, but thousands of jobs were not created. They were capital-intensive factories, but, relatively speaking, steel is labour intensive. Why create a local catastrophe which can be solved only by mammoth Government investment? Why not be sensible and give the go-ahead to a £50 million capital investment scheme at Shotton with new blast furnaces, continuous casting, and an ore terminal at Birkenhead? Is it not a fact that we have new ovens costing £8 million at Shotton and recently refurbished blast furnaces costing approximately £3 million? Are they not likely to be scandalous white elephants if steel making at Shotton is discontinued?
Can the Government retraining centres cope with Shotton's potential army of unemployment? Only the over-60s will volunteer for redundancy and the rest will rightly insist on work. Is it not a fact that there will be 2,500 unemployed men at the Shotton works in the near future, whatever the British Steel Corporation decides to do? I doubt whether the Shotton area can sustain such a blow. Has anyone estimated the huge cost of social security payments to the 18 per cent. who will be unemployed?
Craftsmen travel to the Shotton works from as far as Caernarvon and places in Anglesey and return at weekends to their homes. The whole of North Wales would suffer if the British Steel Corporation did not bring further capital investment to Shotton. There are 1,700 men working at Shotton who come from Cheshire, and 800 from Wrexham. That is conclusive evidence that Shotton is the economic anchor for a wide area. Without a doubt, if the British Steel Corporation's axe fell, hundreds upon hundreds of youngsters would go straight from the classrooms of Flintshire to the dole queues without any future.
It is widely known that the management and the trade unions at Shotton have helped to make Shotton a consistent profit maker. I cannot understand why there are schemes now afoot to castrate an efficient works and to spread gloom and despondency over a proud community. On behalf of the Shotton community, I demand answers to the questions which I have put. Ice-cold computer planners should not decimate the job opportunities

in the area which I have the honour to serve. My constituents are too good to suffer at the hands of desiccated calculating machines at the British Steel Corporation's headquarters.
Make no mistake about it, if the Government sanction an end to steel making at Shotton, we shall have to construe it as a great political defeat for the Secretary of State for Wales and his Department. It would also be the death knell of a great steel community on the banks of the Dee. The heart would be torn out from the North Welsh economy and there would be countless family tragedies alongside the lengthening dole queues.
I do not think that North-East Wales can sustain a job loss of 7,000. The Shotton area, with 18,000 people directly affected by these redundancies, will be decimated in an economic sense. No one can convince me that the Government can find 7,000 new pobs even over a period of years, and the cost of retraining anyway will be astronomical. I want an end to the uncertainty which is enveloping the area in which I live, and a declaration from the Government tonight that Shotton will receive its £50 million worth of development at last.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: I commend my hon. Friends for being so lucky as to have been selected to take part in the debate and for the way they have spoken. We are all aware of the problems of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones), and I commend the efforts he is making on behalf of his constituents and the workers of Shotton and in drawing attention to the fears and concern about the pending crisis looming in his area. In the context of an unemployment debate, his contribution was important.
I will endeavour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to follow the strictures you have laid down, although I make no promise. Thirteen hon. Members tonight have spoken for well over 20 minutes and a few for over 30 minutes. If one extra hon. Member for Wales tends to digress along the line, I do not think that it will damage the parliamentary system or the structure or continuity of the House of Commons.
We in Wales over the last two years have experienced many problems. There are genuine fears. Yesterday, the House debated the industrial situation and what is happening. In this mini-debate on Wales, we are putting forward a few of the reasons for the present atmosphere in industrial relations in Britain. It is because people are afraid and under pressure. Workers are fearful for their jobs. They have seen their fellow workers being made redundant; they have seen factory closures; they have witnessed in the last two years a great deal which has made them afraid. It is therefore right and proper that we should remind the Government of what is happening. If we failed to do so, we should be failing in our duty to Wales.
I am not endeavouring to state that the problems of Wales at the moment suddenly arose with the advent of the Conservative Government. No one can pretend that the problems of redundancies, structural unemployment and the new technologies came about with the advent of the present Government. However, I trust that tonight the Minister of State will depart from his Departmental brief, which no doubt has been well prepared for him. I hope that he will answer the specific points we have raised and follow us in attempting to argue sensibly about what is happening and why, so that at least we can get a feeling that the Welsh Office and its Ministers are genuinely concerned. If he departs from his brief, and makes a mistake, we shall forgive him, for we are all human and it would be refreshing to hear a Minister in any Government departing from his brief.
The Government stand condemned, not because things are happening now which never happened before, but on the false hope which they deliberately created in the minds and hearts of people before the election in 1970. If one were to read the manifesto of the Conservative Party in Wales in June, 1970—I will not weary the House with it tonight—the aim and promise was:
An effective regional development policy as a vital element in our economic and social strategy.
Because of what was thus laid down in June, 1970, great hopes were raised and great things were expected of this

Government. It was not the Industrial Relations Act but the problems of unemployment and prices which were to be dealt with immediately and the promises on which the election was won had been carefully worked out and the people of this country believed a great deal. Assessing the situation, the Government inherited in 1970 a strong development area policy—something which was basically not in existence before 1964.
People far too often condemn the Labour Government when analysing the effectiveness of investment grants but we are analysing not from 1964 but from 1966–67 when we discuss the unemployment situation as it is now, and has been for many years, we must remember that before 1966, development area policy was basically non-existent, and even if the Minister of State argues that there was a policy before 1964, I do not want to reiterate what was in existence before that time, with development districts and a peculiar system of allowances the fact is it failed to begin to answer the problems. Of course there were problems before 1970 and the Government of 1964–1970 did not meet the problems completely. No one on this side will ever argue that they did. But there is certainly a great deal to be said for their work.
As The Times said, in an article called "The Welsh awakening", in August, 1970:
The fundamental weaknesses in the South Wales industrial base are being repaired.
If the Minister of State is to ask what that Government did, what were the fundamental weaknesses and how were they repaired, let me give him some facts. In four years, 196 new firms came to Wales and 46,000 jobs were created. In 1964, 200 people were being retrained, and in 1970, 12,000. One can go on ad infinitum, because before we can analyse the unemployment situation now, we must go back and look at it as it was then.
Sixty-two advance factories were allotted to Wales in five years. Although I was not then an hon. Member, I have read many times the remarks of many about building advance factories that lay empty. Yet by June, 1970, 34 had been occupied—not out of 62 but out of 41 built by that date. Industrial building


approvals had reached an all-time record with 35 million square feet, approved from 1965–1970, more than double the figure for any previous five years since the war. That is what the Tory Government inherited.
What happened as a result of the Conservatives winning the election? Throughout 1970 Selsdon Man had been telling us that subsidies must cease, that grants must come to an end, that industry must stop imagining that it could be mollycoddled for years on end, that people must stand on their own two feet. The immediate impact of the Conservative victory in June, 1970—immediate, not after a few months—was that industrial inquiries dropped remarkably. That is true of the second half of 1970 and throughout 1971, regardless which quarter of 1968, 1969 or 1970 is chosen for comparison.
The figures became abysmally low immediately the Government took office. In the third quarter of 1968, industrial inquiries were 148; in the third quarter of 1970 they were 77; in the fourth quarter of 1968 they were 120; in the fourth quarter of 1970 they were 74. The pattern continued throughout 1971, when they did not rise much above 70, compared with as many as 250 quarterly enquiries if we go back further than 1968.
The important fact about industrial inquiries is that the inquiries of 1970 and 1971 are the factories of 1974 and 1975. If industrialists have not been making inquiries iln the last two years and unemployment is at its present level and redundancies have risen to 33,000 or 34,000 in two years, one shudders to think what will be the position in 1974 and 1975. In addition, there have been cancellations of major projects.
The Minister of State may say that this is the usual political argument and that these are the statistics frequently used in such a debate. But these are not my figures; they are the figures resulting from the CBI survey of March, 1971, into the impact of the Conservative Government's dismantling of the investment grant system, the basic cornerstone of development area policy following the programme laid down in October, 1970. That survey showed that 21 per cent. of the large and 34 per cent. of the

smaller firms had abandoned or postponed expansion projects.
The Minister may say that that was as a result of the economic situation, but that was not the finding of the survey. It is a pity that Ministers from the Department of Trade and Industry are not here to answer for themselves. I am quoting the CBI, not the Labour Party, or the TUC. It said that
the change in the system of investment incentives was presented as a further significant factor leading to the cancellation of new projects.
The Government were told repeatedly, not only by hon. Members and not only by members of my own party, but even by Sir Val Duncan, chairman of Rio Tinto Zinc, for instance, that but for investment grants, the aluminium smelter would never have gone to Anglesey. He told a Select Committee that the smelter project would "never have got started".
Having argued for two years that investment grants were a waste of resources, costly to administer and not producing results, why do the Government now say that basically they were one of the best systems ever devised by any Government since the Industry Bill reintroduces grants. The hon. Gentleman will have to tell us why the Government waited two years, with at times up to 60,000 people out of work, with 34,000 redundancies in two years, with jobs in prospect falling, industrial inquiries falling and the millions of square feet of building approval in decline. He will have to tell us why a system which hon. Members opposite condemned for not providing the results has been presented as one way of solving the regional problems.
Hon. Members opposite have said, "Give us concrete reasons for believing that investment grants were important. Give us examples of industries and firms which decided not to come because of the abolition of the grants." My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Ifor Davies), concerned because the Multiheat plant was not going to Abernant in his area, wrote in 1970 to the Chairman of the National Coal Board, and Lord Robens replied:
… the Government's decision to discontinue investment grants had put paid to our ideas … The loss of the additional employment … is, of course, a matter of much


regret, but I am afraid the Board had no option. Without the financial incentives obtainable under the Labour Government, the project was not a viable one by a very long way.
I come to the question whether the Industry Bill will solve the problems of unemployment in Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Ifor Davies) and I again wrote to the NCB, and the Carmarthenshire County Council received the following reply from Mr. Jefferies the Secretary,
These grants represent an improvement on those which were available immediately before this latest Government announcement, but they will be only about half of those which were available two years ago when we formulated this project.
So even though my hon. Friends have welcomed the Industry Bill, the cash grants available under that Bill, as the present Secretary of the National Coal Board has said, are only half of those which were available two years ago under Labour.
The Minister of State will have to apply his mind to these matters. It was not the large concerns such as the National Coal Board and Rio Tinto Zinc which were concerned about the loss of cash grants. Firms in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) in December, 1970—not 1971 or early 1972—wrote to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Association of Rhondda Industries, and told the Minister
… the curtailment of investment grants will present difficulties to those companies which, for one reason or another, are only marginally profitable. We particularly have in mind relatively newly established companies
There is much concern in the Principality about the reason for the present situation, and it is our duty to discuss in this debate why it has happened. If the Minister of State wishes to refute the arguments which we are advancing, he is welcome to do so. Indeed, we expect him to do so. But he cannot ignore what we are telling him. He cannot ignore what the CBI, the TUC, Rio Tinto Zinc, the National Coal Board and the Association of Rhondda Industries have been telling the Government for the last two years.
There has been a mammoth reduction of jobs in prospect, from 30,000 in 1970 to 18,000 in 1972. In two years, redun-

dancies have been 34,000. Never before, since the war, has it happened on such a scale in Wales. But the crucial point is that the redundancies have not happened in the older declining industries. In the last two years, the redundancy figures have been as follows: metal manufacture 9,360; mechanical engineering 3,890; electrical engineering 2,720; textiles 2,000; metal goods 1,900; chemicals and allied industries 1,800; vehicles 1,500; other manufacturing industries 1,400. In other words, many of the 200 firms which came to Wales in the four or five years before this Government came to office have been affected.
During the time of the Labour Government, we had 30,000 or 40,000 jobs lost in coal mining. The present Government have been fortunate in coming to power after that decline in coal mining had come to an end. No thanks to them. Indeed, it was not much thanks to my own Government either, for we closed down the industry far too quickly and there was a serious shortage of coal because we had wrongly assessed the situation. But if the present Government had had to face not just the loss of jobs in the newer industries but the 30,000 or 40,000 lost in the declining industry of coal mining as well, where would they have been by today?
The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) said that unemployment had been on a rising trend when the Government took over. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands) refuted that argument. The figures from 1967 to 1969 show that unemployment in Wales increased, and it went up to about 42,000, the highest figure under the Labour Government. When the present Government took over, it was 33,000. But here is the important fact. Throughout 1970, taking each month with the corresponding month of 1967, 1968 and 1969, unemployment fell, and then the real increase began in February, 1971. The Minister of State will have to tell us why.
It is high time the Government stopped their pretence about what has been happening in Wales. It is time they stopped pretending that the blame lies solely on the Labour Government who were in office up to June, 1970. Unemployment was on a decreasing trend, and in February, 1971, and continuously since, there came a remarkable increase.
What about industrial development certificates? With 50,000 people out of work and 34,000 made redundant, what is the number of jobs created by IDC approvals in Wales in the last two years? It is expected that 14,000 jobs will materialise. In other words, the gap between jobs lost and jobs created is growing all the time. This is the worry not for 1972, not for 1973, but for the mid-1970s.
The Government say that the overall economic health of the United Kingdom will give the answer. It cannot be the sole answer. The level of industrial building approvals fell sharply from a peak of 8·2 million sq. ft. in 1968 to 2·9 million sq. ft. in 1971. In 1968, industrial development approvals were expected to create 16,000 new jobs, and in 1971 the corresponding figure was 5,600.
What are the people of the Principality supposed to think? I have in mind here those pseudo-patriots in Wales who were loud in their criticisms of the Labour Government. Some of them said that Wales was "in a state of ruin" with 35,000 out of work, but they are quiet now that there are 60,000 out of work. I recognise the alliance between them and the Government, but that is not for me to pursue tonight.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would explain what he means by that?

Mr. Jones: I should be happy to do so if it would not mean my being called to order. That party's representative voting record shows that he was far more friendly towards the Conservative Party than towards the Labour Party. But that is not the basis of our debate. If the Minister presses me I can give him the figures which I have at the back of my mind, but that will be for a later date.
Only five new advance factories have been allocated during this difficult period when the Government have had the responsibility to create jobs. That figure compares with 62 in the four or five years before. The most important point, though, is that 11 advance factories have been standing empty and idle since this Government took office.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) tabled

a Question about the advance factory at Amlwch which has been empty for many months. I think the point should be made that our colleagues in North Wales also face major unemployment problems. Anglesey has a 9 per cent. rate of employment. Caernarvon has some of the blackest unemployment spots in Wales.
Looking at those two counties together, it is a matter of regret that last week two Members who have no connection with that part of the world interfered and held up the Anglesey Marine Terminal Bill which is supported by a majority of the Anglesey County Council. Two Members who are unconnected with Wales and unconnected with the county of Anglesey held up a job-creating Measure. It would have provided between 50 and 100 jobs, and to Anglesey that number is important.
Having outlined the problems, it is our duty to assess the reasons for the decline. Perhaps I may call in evidence, not my own thinking, but that of Mr. Roy Thomas of the Department of Economics at Cardiff University and Mr. Scholefield and Mr. Franks in the National Westminster Bank Review for February, 1972. They have assessed in detail the change in policy which took place in October, 1970. They have assessed the benefits of allowances paid until October, 1970, vis-à-vis the cash grant system. They have analysed the change on many grounds, and this is their general conclusion:
In development areas the new system
—that is the October, 1970 system which has led to the present situation, and in my view the Industry Bill has come too late to help materially in 1972–73—
is significantly inferior to the old cash grant for all asset lives, because of both the reduction and the postponement of the tax allowances.… When we analyse the effects of the changes in systems and tax rates on the advantage of investing in development areas, as against non-development areas, we find that this is dramatically reduced".
They conclude that
The benefits of investing in a development area under the present tax allowance system are inferior to the previous cash-grant system, for plant and machinery".
Then go on to point out for every £100 investment incentive in a non-development area, the equivalent incentive to invest in a development area under the old Labour grant system on a pre-tax


profit of 10 per cent., and an asset life of five years, was £156, but under the October, 1970 system it was £111. The differential had been reduced. The Government carried on doing this. In July, 1971 the initial allowance in the non-development areas was increased from 60 per cent. to 80 per cent., again lessening the differential between the development and non-development areas.
I invite the Minister to look at a reply by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to a Question a year or so ago in which he compared on a discounted cash flow method, assuming investment of £100 and a life of 10 years the benefits under the cash grant system and the allowance system. The differential between the development area and the non-development area under the allowance system, up until the new Industry Bill, was £4 per £100 investment. Under the cash grant system up to June, 1970 it was £13 per £100 investment.
The Confederation of British Industry, writing on the Industry Bill, said:
We are sorry, however, to see some perpetuation of the discrimination against service industries.
My own Government, and certainly the present Government, have possibly relied too much on job creation in manufacturing industry. It is important, but we have seen over the past two or three years that job creation in that sector has been a third of the job creation in the service sector. Unfortunately, the job creation in the service sector has not been taking place in Wales or Scotland on the scale of the South East. The Guardian, in an article headed:
Regions fight for plums
wrote:
new office work is overwhelmingly concentrated in the South-east which, with about 38 per cent. of the employed population of England and Wales, has 59 per cent. of all the people employed in insurance, banking and financial services, 52 per cent. of employees, and 57 per cent. of those in other professional services.
In that sector, which The Guardian says is outstripping manufacturing by about five to three in the number of jobs created, the South East is taking all the plums. That is the tragedy of the situation. On job creation, I have mentioned that 5,600 jobs were created in Wales in 1971. Every region—the North,

Yorkshire, the East Midlands, the West Midlands, the North-West and Scotland —suffered a decline in the number of jobs created last year compared with any year up to 1968, apart from the South East. In Wales 5,000 jobs were created, and in the South East 23,000.
We see a similar situation in the approval of industrial development certificates. In Wales, where there has been a decline every year since 1968, 2·9 million square feet were approved last year. There was a decline in every part of the country, apart from the South East, where there was an increase last year to 17·3 million square feet. What is happening in unemployment, job creation and IDC approval in the rest of the country is not happening in the South East.
I make this suggestion to the Minister of State—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Ronald Russell): Order. In view of what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech I did not interrupt him, but I would remind him that he has been speaking for 35 minutes and there are 12 subjects on the list yet to be discussed.

Mr. Jones: In that case I will make my suggestions briefly and I trust that the Minister of State, since I have been so good as to put them briefly, will pay attention and answer every one of them directly.
The Industry Bill is far too capital-intensively oriented. The cash grants are directed far too often towards the capital creation of plant and machinery and there is not sufficient concentration on labour incentive. The mix between capital incentives and labour incentives is not right. When regional employment premium comes to be phased out in 1974 I ask the Minister to consider a payroll subsidy being introduced in its place. I unashamedly commend to him the suggestion put forward by the Labour Party for the creation of four zones—development zones, intermediate zones, neutral zones and congested zones. The congested zones like the South East of England would get no subsidy but would pay a congestion levy, and the neutral zones would not pay a levy but would not get a subsidy on payroll; but the development and intermediate zones would get a direct payroll subsidy to ally incentives with jobs created.
This should appeal to the Minister because when he was in opposition this was his great argument—that grants were not sufficiently fixed to job creation. I understand the Government's difficulties because the Industry Bill says specifically that there is no attempt to relate grants to jobs created. Obviously a panic Measure.
Then on empty advance factories. I make this point about the rural areas of Wales. I say with reluctance that it is a fact that even under the Labour Government development tended to stop for instance at Llanelli and did not develop sufficiently West or into North-West Wales although 16 new firms came to Carmarthenshire from 1965–69. In the rural areas of Wales we should use the power of the State as the major purchaser, the major creator of wealth to run advance factories. Let the State run those that are empty. I am sure this would help solve the problem of rural areas.
Then there is the question of a regional development bank. It is true that new regional machinery is proposed in the Industry Bill but the difficulty about this, and the greatest criticism of this new machinery, is that it will not have sufficient financial backing. What are needed now is regional development banks for every region with hundreds of millions of pounds of finance behind them, able to plan and develop the regions properly.
In view of your strictures Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will end now, although I could go on ad infinitum on the problems facing Wales. I do not think anyone could accuse me of filibustering or failing to put forward factual analyses of what is happening in the Principality.
I ask the Minister of State to deal with this. He is a fair-minded man and that is not something I would readily say about many other hon. Members opposite. I believe that he is prepared to look at the situation and to analyse it. I ask him to look at what is happening in Wales and to tell us when unemployment will go down to the June, 1970 level. When will that day come? When shall we see in Wales 30,000 people out of work instead of 50,000? Shall we ever see such a period, when there will be industrial prospects and job creation at

the rate of 1968, 1969 or 1970? Or are we to forget that? Has it ended?
Will he give an assurance that the grants in existence will not be done away with when we enter the Common Market? One of my greatest fears for West Wales on the Market issue is not the major constitutional point, but it is an important point of industrial development. We are on the verge of joining the Common Market. It is a fact that we have found it difficult to get jobs transferred from the Midlands and the South East to West Wales in the British context. I am afraid that it does not matter what investment grant system we have. Why should industrialists move from the Midlands to Wales 100 miles further away from the EEC? How will Wales fare when we are in the Common Market, if unemployment is as it is now? When will the day come when Wales can expect a fairer deal than it has had recently, certainly in the last two years, and when the jobs created begin to compare with the number of jobs lost?

1.55 a.m.

Mr. Brynmor John: My hon. Friends have mounted a formidable indictment which must be measured against two factors. First, children about to leave school are the last children in British history who will leave school at 15 years of age, and we must consider, at the end of the school year, what sort of society we are turning them into. Secondly, we must take into account the July unemployment figures. The Secretary of State tried to gloss over this matter at Question Time on Monday by saying that there were exceptional factors. That is like the excuse of the football team supporter whose team always loses by unlucky own goals. But let us exclude the factors which are said to be exceptional and compare July with July, which is a fair comparison.
In July, 1970, there were 34,900 people unemployed; today there are 51,496. The situation is as bad in July, 1972, as it was in December, 1971. This is at the height of the summer when the maximum seasonal factors, if the classifications are to be believed, are working in our favour. Since 1970 we have started each winter at a higher base unemployment level than during the summer before. We have a blackening picture which must cause the gravest anxiety. This is what causes


the passionate and eloquent outpouring we have just heard on behalf of the Welsh nation. I am conscious that the hour is late, but this Parliament must articulate the desires, needs and anxieties of the nations which form this country if it is to be a worthwhile Parliament. Therefore, this debate, even at this hour, is important.
We must bear in mind that 40,000, or 80 per cent., of the 51,000 people unemployed are males. In this country the man of the family is traditionally the breadwinner. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) made the valid point that we cannot divorce a man from his job. We in our society are to blame for that; it is we who inculcated into a boy from his earliest days that labour is a worthy thing, that hard work is a virtue. Are we, then, to be surprised that the loss of a job has such a catastrophic effect upon his whole personality? Yet 40 per cent. of the unemployed are males. How is the Minister proposing to deal with this very difficult and thorny question? In modern industry not much labour is created per factory built, but it is equally true that there has been provided a higher proportion of jobs for female labour, and the eradication of that 40 per cent. will be a difficult task. The adult unemployment figure rose by a net total of 5,000 in Britain as a whole last month, and 1,100, or almost 25 per cent., occurred in Wales alone.
So the picture, far from being the euphoric one we have been presented with by the Secretary of State and all Government spokesmen on Wales, is a darkening one. This winter may find us in a worse situation than we have ever imagined, far worse than that in the darkest days of early 1972, with no immediate prospect in the medium term of any alleviation. It is no good saying to an unemployed man, "In 10 years we will have a marvellous new technological job for you." The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) who has flitted in and out like Tinker Bell sought to suggest this. One cannot tell a man on the dole, and struggling to bring up a family on social security, and amid all the disadvantages, economic, educational and social which that means for that family, "Hold your belt in for 10 years and you

will have a fine job in new surroundings." It is now that we must create jobs. It is now that we must bend our efforts to remedy this unemployment situation.
The keynote of this debate has been the recognition that the task is not an easy one. We have never criticised the Government by saying that this is an easy task which they have been neglecting. We criticise them for going in quite the wrong direction, and in that sense I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) when he says that the Nationalists, with their simplistic combination of separatism —which they have never thought through —and vague economic benevolence—which they have never thought out—can be guilty of misleading the Welsh people that they can easily overcome much of this problem. In a complex industrial society with a high standard of living it is not easy to overcome. Yet the Secretary of State for Wales has been guilty of the grossest complacency of all, and he has to direct his mind to several further substantial issues.
What are those issues? First of all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) rightly said, the Secretary of State must bend all his efforts in the Cabinet towards the preservation of employment in the giant State industries, notably the steel industry in which at present a review is going on. It is not only a matter of losing jobs, but we have the problem of 7,000 or 8,000 male jobs which will be lost there must be created alternative male employment, and the Secretary of State will not lightly be forgiven in Wales if East Moors and Ebbw Vale and the other plants in grave jeopardy in Wales at the moment are cut down and we are faced with this great mass of unemployed for whom we have no hope of creating work, judging by the Government's past record.
Also as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen rightly said, office jobs are heavily over-weighted in the London area, and all the other regions—all the other nations—of Britain have a serious dearth of such jobs. It is easy in the commuter belt of the cities to take an objective view about unemployment. This is due to the fact that we as a nation have allowed an over-concentration of such jobs in those areas so that they are never subject to the vicissitudes


of the market. I believe the Government must move to create in Wales jobs of the clerical or office type.
May I direct one specific problem to the Government's attention, namely the problem of Maindy Barracks. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) asked a Question about this matter on 9th February, 1971, he was told that about 1,500 civil service jobs were to be created on the site of the old Maindy Barracks in Cardiff. Those jobs were originally proposed by the Labour Government. We were told that a central dispersal review was taking place.
Next to "The Mousetrap", this topic must be the longest running show in London. It is true that on 9th March last the Secretary of State said that an element of the Ministry of Defence was coming to Wales, but he did not know which element. But when I pressed the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army in a debate on 16th March, he said that there had been a great misunderstanding and could not be that definite. We now learn that the Government, far from creating 1,500 new jobs, propose a building merely to house existing civil servants in Wales. In other words, instead of the creation of new jobs, we are to have a new "glasshouse" to accommodate existing employees. I believe that the Secretary of State as a matter of urgency must press for a decision on the Maindy Barracks scheme. It has already been too long delayed and any further delays will cause the gravest harm in Wales.
The Government, as one of the biggest purchasers and creators of economic activity in Britain, must now start to use their privileged position in this respect to devote a specific proportion of all contracts to Wales, Scotland and to the regions of England. Only through Government action will the imbalance created by the decline of the older industry be removed, and it is the Government's duty to see that it is taken.
I turn to another area in which the Government can act for the benefit of Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen in the debate on environmental pollution in the Welsh Grand Committee mentioned the extreme inconvenience caused by low-flying aircraft over

West Wales. He mentioned the amount of land held by the Ministry of Defence and the amount of activity carried out by the Department in Wales and in Scotland. We in Wales suffer the overwhelming majority of the inconvenience, but in return we are not getting a fair share of the defence contracts. In reply to a Question on this subject, I was told that only 1·7 per cent. of defence contracts, and 3 per cent. of the value of such contracts, found their way to Wales. That is a grossly inadequate amount of defence expenditure allocated to Wales, when we bear in mind the sacrifices made by the Welsh people for the people of Britain as a whole. The Government should take immediate steps to counteract that imbalance.
Furthermore, the effects of entry into the EEC must be fully spelt out to the Welsh people. It is no secret that we fear the entry into EEC and oppose it. I suggest that there are two main reasons for our opposition. First, we are still waiting for the Government to clarify what is meant in EEC circles by a "central area." The answer to this query will affect the type of regional benefit which we shall receive. Until the situation has been cleared up, there is no certainty about what the Government will be free to do for Wales in future. Apart from a number of references, the Government have now adopted some Trappist views. We demand that they answer these problems quickly.
Rather like an over-zealous suitor, the hon. Gentleman has pressed the advantages of the amount of aid he is now giving to Welsh industry. Incentive, of itself, does not help to correct the imbalance in an industrial society. There must be a combination of incentive and strict physical control by the IDC method. But it is precisely in this area that the control, so far from tightening, is weakening. At Question Time on Monday my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies) put forward some very interesting facts showing that the proportion of IDCs granted in the regions, as opposed to the South-East, was diminishing. In effect, there has been more development in the South-East, and the physical control of the Government by their IDC policy is weakening. If it is weakening within Britain, how much more will it weaken when under Article


93 we shall have no right to stop the free movement of capital? If this is an earnest of the Government's intention, it is an alarming one. This must be clarified immediately.
It is time that we aided labour-intensive industry. A payroll tax should be introduced. I do not use the words as a term of art, but that is the sort of thing needed. It should be something which will differentiate between industries and positively discriminate in favour of those industries which employ people. It is the employment of people and the maintenance of a viable society that is the aim, and not the number of derricks or pylons we can erect on a given site.
In the near future we are about to see the beginning of drilling in the Celtic oil field off the Welsh coast. I should like the Minister of State to take this point very seriously. If he thinks that we shall put up with the old story of the natural resources of Wales—or those of any other region—being drained away without adequate recompense or an adequate share of the wealth created by them being devoted to the area, he is in for a very rude shock indeed. The Minister must recognise that the only way in which Wales can get its proper share of the benefit from such discoveries and drillings is by exploration by State industry and not by private concerns.
Finally, I echo again my hon. Friends. It is time that the Government had the courage and vision not only to use their contractual power to bring work to Wales but to use their direct innovatory power. In other words, the Government ought to set up State pioneering industries to create employment in those areas where no kind of incentive or IDC policy would otherwise bring employment. It is not enough to say to these men. "Hard luck. You are in the dead end of the last industrial revolution". We believe that industry, on a reasonable scale at any rate, must be brought to the people. If we have any right to call ourselves a civilised society. the State ought to be the promoter of that industry.
We have spoken with emotion, but we have tried not to let emotion be the sole criterion that we have applied. We have put forward firm suggestions which the Minister would do well to consider. We

speak on behalf of a country which all Welshmen love. We are at one on that. We all consider that it is rich in social investment, culture and the quality of its people. It is at present a country which is crying to the present Government for help. I hope that it will not cry in vain, because it will be to the disadvantage of all of us if there is a deep despair not only that the Government do not respond to its cries but do not even hear them If the Government cannot and will not in the next few months move to alleviate the terrible, tragic problems of unemployment in Wales, they should move over to enable a Government which can tackle these problems to come to power.

1.15 a.m.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): I will immediately reply to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) whose speech was very much to the point and posed certain specific questions. I tried to count the number of questions which hon. Gentlemen have put to me tonight. I do not pretend I shall be able to answer all of them. I shall try to answer some, and specific questions to which hon. Gentlemen do not receive an answer tonight I shall contact them about by correspondence, because it would be impossible at any hour of the night or morning, let alone this one, to do the full job tonight.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd specifically asked about Maindy Barracks. I am glad he asked about that, because I am able to give him a good answer. There will definitely be 1,500 new jobs.
Another point which I must make when speaking about Cardiff is that, as a result of the Government's decision to have British Rail headquarters in Cardiff, there will be a further 2,000 new jobs there.
On dispersal, about which the hon. Member for Pontypridd spoke, that is to be a major review, and I assure hon. Gentlemen that Welsh interests are certainly being fully taken into account.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have rightly spoken with feeling, and certainly compassion, about the problems of unemployment in Wales. I share their concern and, like them, wish to see the employment situation improved. However, I must take issue with some


of the reasoning and with most of the critical comments we have heard from the Opposition tonight. I cannot share the gloom and pessimism which some hon. Members opposite, with the notable exception of the hon. Member for Pontypridd, sought to spread.
I said at the close of our debate earlier this year—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Mr. Rowlands: I was making a reference to my hon. Friend. I did not realise he was the cockeyed optimist the hon. Gentleman was suggesting.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I said at the close of our debate on Government policy in Wales on 9th March this year that many of the arguments I had heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite were "over-gloomy". As I said then, it is in the nature of any Opposition to be gloomy.
Unemployment in Wales is too high, as my right hon. and learned Friend and I have said on many occasions; but to improve the position we must understand the problems and introduce policies which will overcome them.
Let me look, first, at the arguments about the causes of the difficult employment situation we have had in the past two years.
The reasons for unemployment are normally of long standing. This was to some extent referred to by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) who, at the beginning of his speech, admitted that the advent of the Tory Government had not immediately and automatically brought unemployment. However, towards the end of his speech—about 40 minutes later—the position was entirely different and the hon. Gentleman's argument was stood on its head.
The roots for present unemployment go deep down over a period of at least six years. It is generally recognised that 1966 was a crucial year. Up to that time, from about 1954, the total register of unemployment in Great Britain had been at an average level year on year of about 1·6 per cent. After 1966 the overall level rose sharply. This was of course as a result of the Government's policy. There was very slow growth—indeed, stagnation —and heavy inflation.
Criticism of the present levels of unemployment must be levelled at the policies of the past. Employment trends cannot be changed in a week or two, but require a long period of planning and substantial changes in policy—
[Interruption.] Hon. Members may not agree. We are now beginning to see improvements in the employment position in Wales as in the United Kingdom as a whole. There were good improvements in May and June. The July figures, as the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) admitted, were distorted by other factors.

Mr. Alec Jones: No, I did not.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Yes. The non. Gentleman referred to the school leavers and the students on vacation, but what he did not refer to were those who were laid off as a result of the tin plate dispute at Trostre and Felindre.

Mr. John: That was precisely the reason why I quoted the July to July figures. School leavers and students seeking employment are constant in that month. The fact is that unemployment in July of this year was 7,200 above last July. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that is an encouraging trend?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am trying to give the House some of the reasons why these figures are as bad as they were in July, and nothing the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends say will alter that.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: No. The hon. Gentleman made an extremely long speech. With great respect, I do not want to keep the House any longer than necessary. There are many other hon. Members who want to speak. Although the importance of the subject cannot be overestimated, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. One of the figures which the hon. Gentleman did not give to the House, regarding his own area of Merthyr Tydvil, was unemployment among young persons, a matter of the greatest importance, which between July, 1971, and July, 1972, decreased by 26·5 per cent. from 147 to 108—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Carmarthen scoffs.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: No.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Gentleman is better at scoffing from a sedentary position than any of his hon. Friends. It is right in a debate of this sort not merely for the Opposition to give the bad facts—there must always be bad facts—but to recognise improvements. It must have been known to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) that the situation with regard to young persons has greatly improved. The underlying trend continues to be favourable. Not only have the unemployment trends been reversed—the vacancy figures are rising—but the demand for labour is on the upward trend. Only yesterday, in answer to a Parliamentary Question, we learned that there were 900 vacancies in the tourist industry in Wales, to which I shall be referring later.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a great leeway to be made up? There are 34,000 redundancies, and 8,000 jobs have been created in two years. The Minister speaks of 20 jobs being created in Merthyr Tydfil as if that is of great credit to the Government. Is that the Tory Government's presentation to Wales?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: If I had known that the hon. Gentleman was going to make that sort of intervention, I would not have given way. I was replying to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil, giving certain figures for his constituency which must be well known to him. I am telling the House about those figures because he did not do so.
In general, the economy is continuing on a course which is very much in line with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's expectations at the time of the Budget. The national economy is gaining strength. The indications are favourable. The National Index of Industrial Production reached a new high level of 131·2 in May, which compares with 127·5 in April and an average of 125 in the year 1971.
It can, of course, be said that some of this rise represents a recovery from the low production in the first quarter because of the miners' strike, but it cannot be denied that there is a definite and a promising upward trend. The same thing can be said about the figures for the Retail Sales Index which in May stood at 108·5 as compared with 104·8 for the year 1971.
There has been a reversal in the trend of unemployment and the reasons for this reversal are clear. They stem from the great boost which the Government have given to industry and to industrial confidence in their recent Budget measures and in the new proposals for assistance to industry in the regions. The recent report, issued in July, by the Welsh Council on industrial development policy said:
In its previous report the Council emphasised the vital importance of industrial confidence as a pre-requisite for a sustained improvement in the state of the economy. It is pleased to record its view, based on the extensive knowledge of the industrial, financial and commercial scene which its members between them possess, together with the impressions gained from the contacts which members make with others engaged in these fields, that the period since the Budget has shown signs of increasing confidence. This reinforces the prospect that the new regional investment inducements which are being introduced will operate against a background of reasonable overall growth in the U.K. economy. It is most important that this should be so.
I draw attention to this paragraph because it highlights two main considerations which will affect the future prosperity and, therefore, the future employment prospects in Wales—first, the restoration of confidence and, secondly, the new system of regional investment inducements.
There is still, I fear, some lack of appreciation about the size of the new investment in the regions. There is a tendency to argue that while the level is certainly higher than that which applied before March of this year, it is no higher than the levels which applied before 1970. The Welsh Council report to which I have already referred gives the lie to this. After a very detailed examination of the allowances and grants available now, and comparing them with the pre-October, 1970, system—and comparing them on a two year, a five year and a 10 year basis—the Council points out how large has been the substantial improvement in the position of the development areas and the special development areas. This substantial improvement points the way to improvements in job prospects in manufacturing industries.
There has been criticism in the debate that our new incentives do not pay enough attention to the service industries. We are criticised for concentrating regional


assistance on the manufacturing and capital intensive industries, to the exclusion of the service industries. I remind hon. Members opposite that the present Administration have done much more for the service industries than was done before 1970. We have already removed half the selective employment tax and the remainder is to be abolished. In addition, there is the possibility of selective assistance in respect of free depreciation on plant and machinery for service industries as part of the Industry Bill.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: I promise that this is my last question. The hon. Gentleman rightly says that the Welsh Council states that the new incentives on plant, machinery and industrial buildings are better not only than pre-October, 1970, but better than under the Labour Government. That is true. But I ask him, therefore, why abolish cash grants in October, 1970, and re-introduce them in June, 1972?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: That is hardly a new point. The hon. Gentleman has made it before. What we have introduced here is far greater than was ever introduced before by any Government.
Hon. Members opposite have referred, quite naturally, to closures and redundancies. But they have not given the hard facts about the new starts in Welsh industry and expansions in existing firms in Wales, all of which make the prospects much brighter. I will give hon. Members opposite a few examples. First, there is the new industrial estate at Waterton, Bridgend, which, when it is fully developed, will be one of the largest of its kind in Europe. Already one firm has arranged to occupy an advance factory on this site and provide jobs for over 300 people.
Another advance factory at Kenfig Hill is being taken over by an existing firm in Bridgend and this will provide another 50 jobs.
At Merthyr and Tredegar there is to be a sizeable new investment involving some 800 jobs. There are good new developments at Cwmbran, Aberdulais and Wrexham, and encouraging instances of established new firms taking on additional staff at Merthyr and Bangor.
These are by no means the end of the story. There are definite signs of busi-

ness and industry turning to Wales to expand. In the first six months of this year, there were about 130 visits to Wales and just under 200 inquiries from industrialists with expansion plans under consideration. These figures are markedly higher than those for the same period last year.
We must not forget that industry in Wales is not entirely confined to the South Wales area and the North Wales coastal strip, although a large proportion of our people live there To me, one of the most reassuring features of industrial developments in recent times has been the relatively successful period enjoyed by Mid-Wales, and here, as usual, I pay tribute to the work done by the Mid-Wales Industrial Association.
There are some areas in Mid-Wales, of course, which have found the going difficult. For example, Blaenau Ffestiniog is an area causing particular concern. The overall picture in Mid-Wales is one of a much reduced depopulation rate overall, and in the last 12 months there have been sizeable and welcome developments at Newtown, Lampeter, Llandrindod Wells and Brecon.
There is one aspect of employment in Wales which is too often ignored or under-played and which has not been referred to tonight. That is the importance of the farming industry. Throughout much of Wales, employment does not rely on the big industry which hon. Members have in general been referring to tonight.
The market towns depend to a large extent on the prosperity of agriculture. Anyone with any knowledge of farming since the war will know that farmers have benefited greatly from two good price reviews and a special injection of money in the autumn of 1970. We found farming in an unhappy state two years ago when we carne to office. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Carmarthen should know this, if his hon. Friends do not. Our policies have produced a changed picture in the countryside.
In the same way we have made a larger contribution to support of the tourist industry in Wales, our greatest service industry, which suffered a great deal before 1970. The amount of spending on the Welsh Tourist Board has gone up from just over £500,000 in 1970–71 to


over £1·8 million in 1972–73. This is encouraging.
Hon. Members have raised particular problems about particular areas, but I will say a word about the coal and steel industries. I do not want to go over in detail much of what was said in our debate in the Welsh Grand Committee on 23rd February. I have to emphasise that my right hon. and learned Friend and I are in no doubt about the importance to the Welsh economy of both the coal and steel industries.
The hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) raised the question of Shotton. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) have rightly put this forward on a number of occasions. As the hon. Member knows, having seen my right hon. and learned Friend only this week, a £19 million programme of improvements is currently being undertaken at the finishing end and this part of the works has an assured future in the medium term. What we call the heavy end is still a matter for the British Steel Corporation to consider.
Nobody can underestimate the importance of the steel industry for Wales. It employs one in seven of the employed male population; well over 70,000 are employed in our steelworks and this is over 22 per cent. of all British steel workers.
No decisions have yet been taken about the future of the industry in Wales. These depend in the first instance on the proposals to be put forward by the British Steel Corporation. When we have them, they will receive serious consideration from the Government, and regional factors will loom large in our deliberations.
There are bound to be problems. It is at the heart of all modern major industry that as its efficiency improves, so can the same level of production be achieved by fewer working staff. We need a viable steel industry, and that may well mean rationalisation and some redundancy, but within such a viable industry we need to safeguard as best we can Welsh steel interests and jobs.
I hope that in this short time I have been able to show hon. Members opposite and the House in general that, although unemployment is a most serious matter

that we have to face and that we are still tackling in Wales, I should not wish the message from our debate this morning to be that there is any lack of confidence in Welsh prospects.

Mr. Rowlands: In view of the picture that the Minister has painted, would he make the confident forecast and give us the assurance that the level of unemployment this winter will be as low as the level of 1969–70? If we could get that assurance, at least we could test the Minister's assertions against the facts this coming winter.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Member has asked me a question that no one in his senses would answer at this time of night in a short answer from this Box. No doubt the hon. Member would like me to give an answer and would like to prove me wrong, which is why he asked the question. I have known him to ask this sort of question in Welsh debates when he was in the House previously. I was about to conclude the debate by saying that the message that should go out from the House tonight is that there is no lack of confidence in Welsh prospects. Certainly there is no lack of confidence in Wales so far as the Government are concerned.

TRAFFIC CONGESTION, BRISTOL

2.37 a.m.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I appreciate the opportunity to raise the problem of holiday traffic congestion in Bristol, South. The Under-Secretary is making his second appearance in debates at a late hour about West Country roads and he will be only too well aware that the West Country as a whole has serious road problems. He will also appreciate that, compared with his appearance in the former debate, this is a comparatively early night for him.
I shall address myself to a rather narrow problem, specifically related to my constituency and Bristol as a whole. During the previous debate, the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) stressed the importance of the tourist and holiday industry for the West Country, and I made much the same points on the Committee and Report stages of the Industry Bill. Everybody in the West


Country is anxious to see that industry thriving.
But there is a heavy price to be paid. As the Government are quite specific in their pledges of more help for this industry, I hope that they will give more help to overcoming the appalling traffic congestion that is developed by people travelling to the West Country for holidays. In the Bristol area the price of that traffic congestion is paid by my constituents more than by anybody else.
My constituents often say that they feel great sympathy for the motorist delayed for anything up to three or four hours while travelling through Bristol, but they point out that his frustrations are only twice a year—on the outward and homeward journey—whereas they have to put up with tremendous frustration from Friday to Sunday throughout the summer months. This nightmare is brought about and is being greatly worsened by motorway developments, because we now have not only the M4 feeding traffic from Wales, but 120 miles of the M4 from the London area and, above all, 286 miles of the M5 and M6 system forming a great arterial way pouring in holiday traffic which comes to an abrupt halt when it reaches the end of the motorway at Port-way, Avonmouth.
The traffic is absolutely solid at the weekends. With the assistance of the Bristol police, I recently toured the traffic when it was at its most congested and, apart from the houses which immediately abut on to the roads where this congestion occurs, where there is very obvious inconvenience caused, this congestion interferes with the daily life of many thousands of my constituents. North of the River Avon, the Portway for several miles forms a reservoir where traffic can accumulate. It does not cause any great distress, to residents nearby until it reaches the Shirehampton area. Once Cumberland Basin has been crossed and the traffic reaches Winterstoke Road on the south side of the river the real problem for my constituents begins. The Ashton Drive area is completely isolated by this mass of traffic along Winterstoke Road forming a moat or even a sort of Berlin Wall, and preventing the normal passage of my constituents about their daily affairs.
There is a small roundabout at the junction of Winterstoke Road and Ashton

Drive, but when the traffic is solid the people are virtually trapped, and at this roundabout there is a great need for better signs to be erected because visiting motorists passing through Bristol do not understand the need to give way, and extremely dangerous conditions arise.
If we pass further along the road we come to the junction of Winterstoke Road with Luckwell Road and South Liberty Lane on the other side. There is a serious need here for a box junction because otherwise new traffic waiting to go through the traffic lights and enter the one-way system completely blocks the normal flow across.
Incidentally, at the traffic lights there is a great deal of noise and resultant distress. I should like to refer to a letter from one of my constituents about the problem. She mentions the great increase in traffic day and night, and she says that with the holiday traffic the noise is becoming intolerable. Heavy lorries also use the route and the noise they make as they pull away from the traffic lights makes sleep impossible. This is just one constituent among very many who have complained not only to myself but to the local councillors who have to cope with the problem.
Traffic going round Parson Street up on to Bedminster Down is in four streams and there is no real warning for motorists coming down Highcliffe Way, having been diverted, that if they turn left and go into the stream of traffic they will be bogged down for a long time. Here there should be some direction that they ought to turn right rather than left.
The climb up to the Cross Hands public house at the top of the hill is very difficult for heavy lorries and cars towing caravans, and again some thought should be given to diverting these types of vehicles to improve the traffic flow for the remainder.
Corning down from Bishopsworth, Withywood and Bedminster Down there is a main route which is blocked up for some hours each day and at the week ends, and many of my constituents are diverted, having to go by by-ways and tedious diversions because the route is so completely overloaded with holiday traffic.
There is the further complication that on the Winsterstoke Road there is the Bristol City Football Club ground. On 19th August, the first major home fixture takes places against Millwall, and, whatever the vicissitudes of the team during the season, since hope springs external, if it is at all a reasonable day about 16,000 or 17,000 people will be likely to converge on Ashton Gate. The effect of that on the already dense holiday traffic can be readily imagined.
I ask the Minister to ask his officials to examine urgently any proposals which may come from the city council to try to cope with the problem, and to go out themselves into the field, if they will, and see whether they can generate their own proposals. I want the Minister to slash through any red tape which may stand in the way of some immediate measures to try to reduce the problem.
Now, the question of holiday routes. I wrote to the Department of the Environment on 24th July about this matter. It seems to me that the holiday route which leaves the M5 just after the Almondbury interchange at Cribbs Causeway is not sufficiently used at the moment. This road passes through the north of Bristol, mainly through the constituency of the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), and I am sure that he will agree that it would be a good idea if we struck some sort of balance between traffic going along the motorway to Portway and the holiday route. Obviously, if either becomes saturated, it is a failure in the system.
At present, where the holiday route turns off the motorway, there is an extremely large motorway sign indicating that the M5 goes on towards the South-West. There is no indication to the motorist that within a few miles the motorway finishes. If some sort of indication could be given to motorists of whether at any given time it is more advantageous to go along either the motorway or the holiday route, both these routes could be used to the maximum advantage. At present, there is no incentive for the motorist to turn off the motorway and use the holiday route because he has no indication that within a few miles he will leave the motorway and run into the appalling congestion building

up along the Portway. I urge the Department to think seriously about introducing flexibility into the holiday route signs so that the motorist has some idea of whether it will be useful to use such a route.
The city council proposed earlier in the year that there be a feed-off from the motorway at Tormarton on the M4, but this was opposed by both Bath and the Somerset County Council. There is always the difficulty that, when suggestions are made to channel traffic through alternative routes, the local people express strong opposition, but we must try to generate some sort of communal spirit about this problem, with everyone pegging in to try to solve it. We ought not to countenance the "Pull up the ladder" attitude which some people seem to adopt whenever anyone suggests that their area might play a small part in relieving the congestion.
I have at short notice received some useful information from the AA, for which I am grateful. The AA says that it has made various suggestions about holiday routes, being fully aware of the problem in Bristol. After each weekend of chaos and heavy traffic, its advice would be, "If the holiday route signs are uncovered, use them". The AA also makes special holiday route leaflets available, and it broadcasts information on Radio Bristol. Radio Bristol is on VHF. If we could have broadcasts on the more widely listened to programmes such as the Light Programme, the Music Programme and Radio One, it might be more useful. If motorists knew that this information was coming through and they had car radios, we could build some sort of system by which they were told. But if the motorist is to take holiday routes seriously there must be some flexibility in directing people on to them, and there must be some reliability that it will pay the motorist to turn off and accept the invitation the holiday route offers. I ask the Department to think seriously about this.
Everybody appreciates that the real answer to the problem in Bristol, and particularly in my constituency, is the motorway bridge across the River Avon. I hope that the Minister will be able to receive the deputation which has been requested by the British City Council to


press this matter on him, and also that the Government will feel able to give special help to deal with the problems which the completion of the bridge presents. Just as they are prepared to help the tourist industry with the Industry Bill, so I hope the Government will do the reverse and try to assist in dealing with the problems generated by this traffic.
If this were a wartime situation, the problem of the bridge would be solved rapidly. The hon. Member for Westonsuper-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) has suggested a Bailey bridge across the river. This is a tempting solution, but there are serious engineering problems connected with it, and possibly the Minister may touch on this. Although it seems an attractive proposition, my information from people on the city council is that difficult problems are involved.
In the summer season Bristol is saturated, and my constituents in particular suffer greatly from the movement of traffic through the city. On the long-term solution of the motorway bridge, I ask the Minister for an assurance that my constituents will not have to suffer another summer of misery and disruption from this traffic. I ask for this assurance particularly for the elderly and for those with young children who have a real fear that, even going about their daily lives with the utmost care, there will be serious and possibly fatal accidents.
With some hope that the Minister can give us at least some good news tonight and that he will look into some of the points that I have raised, I conclude by thanking him for his attendance at this debate.

2.53 a.m.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-superMare): It is clear that at least on our side of the Bristol Channel we shall be able to make our case a little more briefly than the Welsh Members did.
I find myself in a slight difficulty because, having put my name down for seven weeks for an Adjournment to deal with the subject that we are discussing tonight, I was finally fortunate in the ballot for next Monday However, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) on having taken this opportunity of bringing the matter forward a few days, since it is of vital urgency to our part of the world.
One is a little anxious about painting too black a picture at the height of the tourist season for fear of discouraging those who wish to come and patronise the most important industry of the South-West, but it is the very popularity of our region for holiday making that substantially contributes to the problem that we face.
Bristol is the gateway to the West, and the more so since the completion of the M5, the M4 and the Gravelly Hill interchange at Birmingham enables most of the country to get to Bristol very much more quickly than it did before. But once they get to Bristol they go on to the miserable A38, a terrible road with an appalling accident record. I have the figures, and in each of the last five years, with the exception of the last they show an unhappy increase. The number of deaths rose from two in 1967, to eight in 1968, seven in 1969, seven in 1970 and nine in 1971 on the short stretch between the boundary of Bristol City and Highbridge. The solution to the problem is clearly the completion of the Avonmouth M5 bridge. I am not certain whether the M5 motorway is quite on schedule, but it can only be a little bit behind. I hope that the stretch between the Avonmouth bridge and Edithmead will be completed by Christmas this year, but it will be a motorway without access, a motorway that may yet not be opened. The reason is the bridge.
When the tragic disaster took place at Milford Haven during the election campaign of 1970 and then later the Yarra bridge in Melbourne collapsed, it was clear that another look would have to be taken at the design of box girder bridges. As a precautionary measure, the Government placed certain restrictions on the Cumberland Basin bridge and on both the approaches to the Severn bridge, and all the plans for the Avonmouth bridge were postponed. Subsequently, Dr. Merrison of Bristol University was asked by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to report on the design of box girder bridges. With commendable speed and competence he produced the first part of that report, and it was clear that the M5 Avonmouth bridge was one of the most serious problems faced by the Department at that time.
The difficulty of redesigning and strengthening the bridge was magnified when work started by difficulties with lead fumes in the welding and other problems. We were told originally that the delay on the bridge would be about six months, that the original completion date of October or November this year would be pushed back to next April. We all appreciated the reasons for that delay.
But this summer the traffic situation has become an even worse shambles. The thought of having to tolerate any further delay beyond next April is very frightening for the whole of our part of the country. On Saturday, 22nd July, this year, the Bristol Evening Post reported a 50-mile traffic jam on this main trunk road. The same day the Western Daily Press reported a traffic jam in the hon. Gentleman's constituency at 2 o'clock in the morning. That is the sort of situation we have to put up with weekend after weekend, not just on Friday nights and Saturdays and Sundays.
I travelled on the A38 on Monday morning. The traffic jam into Highbridge had already started at the Brent Knoll junction. To talk of misery and disruption—the hon. Gentleman's words—is scarcely to sum up our feelings and the problems we have to face. People refuse to cross the A38 on a Saturday. I spent nine minutes last Saturday trying to get into the stream of traffic.
The inconvenience and discomfort to the local people is nothing to the cost to local business, local tradesmen and those who, in anticipation of the motorway network being set up and based on Bristol, have moved warehouses to Avonmouth for distribution networks in South Wales and the West Country. The cost of the delay must be enormous.
What should be done? The first thing I must suggest is that 24-hour working should be instituted at once on the bridge. At present no work is going on. The contractors are on holiday. They must have their holidays, but it seems a pity that extra men cannot be taken on to try to get work going on a wartime basis. If it is not possible to work at night—and I have no doubt that when the span goes across the river conditions will be dangerous—at least let us have working

during all daylight hours, with double shift working in the summer particularly.
I suggested that investigations should be made into the erection of a temporary bridge. I am not an engineer and I can well imagine that at first glance the technical problems of erecting any sort of bridge on this site would be enormous. But the cost of the delays are enormous too. It is important that this alternative should be investigated. Of course the money would be better spent on speeding up the original bridge but I make this suggestion if there were technical reasons making this impossible.
The access to the part of the M5 between Avonmouth and Edithmead could be helped by the improvement of the B3128 and the B3130 which is the road running from Ashton Court to Clevedon, a road that will be improved in the long term programme, no doubt, but there is nothing firm as yet. About eight miles of that road could be improved in an emergency and if the Minister really applied himself to it I am certain that it would be an enormous assistance in getting traffic from the outskirts of Bristol back to the motorway. The extension of the Long Ashton bypass is a much discussed matter. That runs through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) and there have been certain difficulties over its route and so on.
It is again a road which must be built in the not too distant future, for the sake of my constituents and those travelling further west and for those who have business on that side of Bristol. I hope that it will receive priority treatment. Mention has been made of traffic coming from London and the South down the M4, which at the moment goes all the way down the motorway to Bristol and turns left into the traffic jam. Surely some of this traffic could be diverted at Chippenham or some such place and encouraged to go across country to try to disperse the traffic blockages at weekends?
What is the cost of these delays to the country? Perhaps the Minister could, with the economic assessments that he is so keen on making when we try to get little by-passes and such things, assess the cost of these enormous jams and terrible delays. It must be possible to


make an equation to see what extra money could and should be spent by the nation to get rid of this appalling disaster. I am reluctant to promote the holiday routes strongly since many of them finish down the very inadequate lanes in Somerset which I will be debating with my hon. Friend on Monday evening.
One point many people in my constituency have made to me is that the policing of the junctions on the A38 particularly on Friday nights and Saturdays could substantially assist the flow of traffic on to the main road from the locality. I was sorry to see on television when the "Points West" programme tried the holiday route through Bristol and found that there was a substantial saving in time to be made, that there was no policeman on point duty on the A38 although an assurance had been given to me that there always would be a policeman there.
I know that the Minister has in the past taken his holidays in or near Weston-super-Mare and he is very welcome to come again. I hope he will and that he will take a personal look at our problems. I do not think that so far we have yet managed to impress on the Department the extreme difficulties with which we have to put up. The situation has undoubtedly deteriorated rapidly in the last few months and the thought of having to put up with it again for another summer is more than many of my constituents can bear, to say nothing of the appalling cost in inconvenience, misery and danger.

3.4 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) has raised a matter of substance, reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). I know from personal experience that this has caused not only a great deal of hardship, not least to my constituents who spend their holidays down there—because the Midlands traditionally spends a lot of time in my hon. Friend's constituency, passing through the constituency of the hon. Gentleman—but also to the people living in Bristol and Somerset.
The situation this year has been at times well-nigh intolerable. My hon. Friend invited me to go to Westonsuper-Mare. I can tell him that last year on 14th August I attended the wedding of a relative in Weston, on a Saturday. It was a day when we had a cloud burst on the way down and along the Portway in Bristol I experienced in full the delights of Bristol traffic on a Saturday at the height of the season and I only just made the wedding. Therefore, I have had personal experience of the problem and I know that if anything it has become worse.
I wish to deal first with some of the points which the hon. Member for Bristol, South made about roads in his constituency. Most of them are the responsibility of the highway authority, which is the City of Bristol, and I will draw its attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. No doubt it will study closely, as will the local authority in Somerset, what has been said in this debate because a number of interesting comments have been made and I hope to make one or two more.
As I said in the Adjournment debate a few weeks ago, there are a number of massive road schemes under way and in the pipeline for the South-West amounting to several hundred millions of pounds. In Bristol, £8¾ million worth of road schemes are in the firm programme and £18½ million worth are in the preparation list. I accept the important point which the hon. Gentleman made that not only spending money on road improvements but the question of traffic management and signposting is extremely important. The hon. Gentleman will also know—and this is perhaps slightly in the longer term—that a land use and transportation survey is going on in the city which will obviously have a major impact on the future development of the road pattern in Bristol. The points which the hon. Member made were valid, and I will draw them to the attention of the local highway authority.
I turn to outlining what we think will be a suitable traffic pattern. Because of the difficulties caused by the lack of the Avon bridge, this will help the hon. Gentleman and his constituents in the short term. But the real answer must be the completion of the Avon bridge. It


is the lack of the bridge which is causing the problems about which the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend have spoken.
The Avonmouth bridge contract was awarded to Fairfield Mabey in July, 1969, in the sum of £4,204,000 following receipt of competitive tenders from seven major civil engineering firms. The prescribed time for completion was 36 months, to terminate on 1st September, 1972.
Freeman Fox and Partners were appointed to design and supervise construction of the bridge. This firm was similarly responsible for the 48 miles of the motorway northward from Bristol to the Ross Spur interchange on the M50, and this length is now completely open to traffic. It is also responsible for the 23 miles of the motorway southwards from Bristol to Edithmead in Somerset. The bridge is the only M5 contract to fall substantially behind the scheduled programme, but its completion is vital to the whole network.
The main contractor appointed Messrs. Tarmac Construction Limited as subcontractors for the road works section of the contract. These works have been largely completed except for the carriageways over the bridge itself.
The Avonmouth bridge will be the longest bridge on the M5. It will be located across the Bristol Avon 4½ miles north-west of Bristol. Its overall length will be 4,550 feet. In addition to the carriageways, it will have a footway and a cycle track. The overall deck width is 132 feet. Its clear height above high water—100 feet—provides adequate clearance for shipping. The superstructure of the three main spans consists of twin welded steel box girders of variable depth inter-connected at 12 feet centres by cross girders. Cantilevers outside the box sections support the footway and cycle track. The deck, of stiffened steel plates, acts integrally with the box girders. The approach spans are twin steel box girders of constant depth with cross girders and cantilevers at 10 feet centres. The reinforced concrete deck slab acts compositely with the steel work. The total weight of steel in the structure in the original design is about 11,500 tons, which is a lot of steel.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare outlined very accu-

rately the events following the Milford Haven and Yarra Bridge disasters which led to the Merrison rules and the reappraisal of the designs not only of this bridge but many others in different parts of the country. Although work on the bridge started in September, 1969, only site work had commenced on the superstructure when the suspension orders were issued in May, 1971, following those disasters. The contractor was several months behind the programme at this time and the delay had nothing to do with the box girder problems. The suspension orders were in respect of fabrication and assembly of certain highly stressed sections of the bridge and all erection, but in fact practically all work on site and in the fabrication yards came to a standstill, although where possible fabrication and assembly work were continued on materials not affected by Merrison.
As the Merrison checks were completed work on site and in the workshops recommenced and the Department had every reason to believe at the turn of the year that a maximum effort would be mounted by the contractor and his employees to speed up erection of the superstructure and complete the job in the spring of 1973, some five months behind the original contract date. This would have confined the delay to the winter of 1972 and early spring of 1973. This was not to be. There was a whole series of factors. A number of labour disputes on the site had virtually led to a complete stoppage of erection work in December, 1971. To make matters worse, on 8th March this year a court injunction was taken out by the Factory Inspector on the grounds of atmospheric pollution within erected and partially completed boxes on the ground which precluded welding or cutting inside the boxes without the use of air masks. The original tests were conducted under the auspices of the Factory Inspector with only union representatives and workmen present. The contractor was not satisfied with these tests and arranged for independent ones to be carried out, because he believed that conditions in the boxes did not warrant the use of air masks, which would have a serious, adverse effect on the rate and quality of work done. This difficulty had not arisen on any other box girder site.
There were various other difficulties of an industrial relations nature which arose. One way and another, the situation seemed to deteriorate in the early months of this year. Welders employed in the boxes at Avonmouth had to be retested wearing masks. I understand that some failed the test. The welds were tested because the quality of the work was suspect where the welders wore masks. The wearing of masks was a considerable inconvenience to them.
The injunction was finally lifted on 15th May, 1972. It is clear that all these various problems had delayed the bridge very considerably indeed. Industrial relations got even worse in April and May, but finally agreement was reached between the employers, the unions and the men concerned, and since then there has been good co-operation, I understand, and good work on the site.
Nevertheless, it became clear that matters were getting very far behind in progress on construction of the bridge, and therefore a draft report about trying to accelerate progress was received on 13th April. It was our intention after studying the report and discussing matters of difficulty with the consultants, Freeman Fox, to put a case to accelerate the work. The object was to endeavour to open the entire section of the motorway, including the bridge, before the high density traffic flows started in the summer of 1973.
Unfortunately, the report received reflected the rather pessimistic view taken by the consultants and the contractor about achieving early completion, and, notwithstanding the fact that substantial sums of money might be involved, no guarantee could be given that the target date could be met. That, clearly, was not satisfactory for the Department.
The consultants have confirmed that the greater part of the delay stemmed directly from the problems associated with the box girder checks and that over a considerable time a contributory factor in the delay was the injunction forbiding welding without masks in boxes.
A further contributory factor arising from the delays associated with the box girder checks has been the labour problems on site. This has meant that we are far behind schedule.
Furthermore, meetings attended by representatives of the Department, consulting

engineers and the contractor have taken place to determine how best to speed up contruction of the bridge. Since the lifting of the injunction every effort has been made to improve working conditions and improved bonus incentives have been agreed by the men on the site. There will be a further meeting, which I hope will resolve matters, in a very few days' time when officers of my Department will be receiving a report from consultants on proposals to speed up completion. There are still many difficulties of a technical nature to be overcome.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare suggested that there could be 24-hour working, and I do not know what proposals will be contained in the report which we shall receive in the near future. He mentioned double shift working, extra manpower and so on. These matters will be seriously considered.
The question of 24-hour working is at the end of the day the responsibility of the contractor and there are real technical problems, particularly safety problems, to be considered. I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that we cannot take unacceptable risks with people's lives, and I understand that that would be the situation if there were round-the-clock working on such a major enterprise over a long period of time, bearing in mind that extremely skilled men are employed on the contract and are undertaking a difficult job. This is not the normal sort of contract job and the supply of skilled men is very limited. If round-the-clock working were to take place for only two or three weeks, that might be feasible, but this would mean that such work would have to take place over many months.
I am sure my hon. Friend's suggestions will be considered in the next few days when we get the report from the consultants. But I have to say—and it is right that I should be honest with the House and with the public—that, having taken a deep personal interest in this problem, even to the extent the other day of paying a visit to the site to have a quick look, I regret to inform the House that there is no prospect of this bridge being opened by next summer. I hope very shortly to be in a position to announce the opening date and I will have something to say on that matter a little later


in my remarks. It is right that the situation should be known so that everyone realises the full scale and size of the problem.
Having said that, this raises immediately the question of a Bailey bridge, about which I have been asked. I am not an engineer, but I have been advised by extremely competent engineers for the purpose of this exercise that a Bailey bridge or some other form of emergency bridge is not feasible. There was a report in the local Press that a gentleman from a firm called Acrow said that a bridge could be put up in eight weeks at a cost of £1 million and that this would do the job. I investigated that report and was told by the firm that it had been misreported and that its chief engineer had not made that statement; the firm could not meet the span or loading figures required.
There is a possibility of building a bridge to the east of the present bridge. Unfortunately, the cost of this is likely to be more than the actual bridge itself, and the bridge itself will cost over £4 million. That bridge could not be completed in time for next summer, so it would not make a contribution to solving the traffic problems which have been so graphically described. I regret to inform the House that there does not seem to be a solution of the Bailey bridge type. We must, of course, bear in mind that the river is essential to the port of Bristol and that there are rules and regulations to be observed; we cannot stop the port of Bristol operating for a year or 18 months.
In regard to the remaining section of the M5, it has been agreed by all the local authorities, the police and my Department that as soon as these sections are completed they should be opened, and I am sure that this is the right decision.
The House may be interested to know that the first section, from Gordano to Edithmead, will be open in December this year. The section from Edithmead to Dunball will be open for August next year; the section from Dunball to Hunt-worth will be open in June, 1974; the section from Blackbrook to Chelston in March, 1974; from Huntworth to Black-

brook in May, 1975; and from Birmingham to Chelston in May, 1975.
That means that the whole section—leaving the bridge as a separate issue—will be open by May, 1975. But the important major stretch to Edithmead will be open in five months' time. Obviously this raises a very difficult problem.

Mr. Wiggin: All my constituents and the local authorities will be very grateful for the wise decision my hon. Friend has made to open the short section of the M5 when it is completed.

Mr. Speed: I am grateful for those remarks. I should like now—I hope that they will welcome this as well—to outline the proposals we have in mind to try to cope with the local situation to get traffic from one side of the Avon to the other until the bridge can be opened. These are proposals. They have yet to be agreed formally with the police and with Somerset and Bristol, and discussions are continuing. But as I have related the rather sad news about the bridge for next summer, the House would like an indication of the way our mind is moving. This obviously must be flexible. This has had its advantage that the major section of motorway to Edith-mead will be opening at Christmas, so we have the winter and early spring months to see whether the arrangements we make for the traffic are sensible. We are not making the arrangements at the height of the traffic season, so we have flexibility and can watch how the traffic is flowing and operating. This will be very much in our minds. It may well be that further alterations will have to be made in the light of experience. But on the basis that we are opening the section of motorway now, the position will be as follows.
Traffic from the M4 and the M5—and traffic problems are much greater from the M4 than from the M5; that is our experience, and I am sure that the AA would confirm that—making for the M5 south and the northernmost interchange at Portbury will travel from Cribbs Causeway interchange on the M5 via the Clifton suspension bridge and the A369—traffic using that route will be low weight traffic, cars. The flexibility or otherwise of that particular route has been mentioned. The alternative to that is staying on the M5 to


Avonmouth and then taking the Portway to Cumberland Basin. From there the shortest way to the Portbury interchange is via the A369.
We have to have maximum flexibility. On occasions the Clifton suspension bridge route is running at near capacity. In fact, this is already happening. There has been some comment that vehicles have not been using this route. But I asked for the traffic figures, for example, on Saturday, 15th July. The traffic flow on the Clifton suspension bridge was 14,00 vehicles. On Saturday, 22nd July, it was 14,500 vehicles. That is very near the capacity of the bridge. This means jams back into my hon. Friend's constituency. If this sort of situation arises it is probably better to put traffic on to the Portway rather than having the great clogs and jams we get on the approaches to the Clifton bridge.
As a matter of urgency, we are looking at the question of flexible signs that can be tightly controlled. It is important that when these signs are in operation the motorist has considence to either turn off to use the Clifton bridge knowing that he will not be completely bogged down, or, alternatively, if he is advised to go the other way, he can guarantee that, even though it may take a longer route, it will be quicker.
This will depend very much on the co-operation of the police, and I am sure that we shall get that. My officials are working closely with the City of Bristol police to try to improve this particular situation, which is one which needs improving. The hon. Member for Bristol, South was quite right to write to my hon. Friend as he did The Clifton route takes care of itself, as it were; but the traffic going via the Cumberland Basin, if it goes up the A369, climbs Rownham Hill, which has a gradient of one in eight, poor alignment and narrow carriageway, can get stuck. Heavy lorries frequently stick on the hill and can be moved only by heavy breakdown equipment. The descent of this hill is also dangerous for heavy vehicles.
It is obvious that, in the traffic conditions we are talking about, that situation would not be acceptable as it will be one of the main alternative routes to get traffic from one side of the M5 to the other. So we are considering, in conjunction with

the local authorities, a ban on heavy lorries on Rownham Hill and alternative routes for them from Cumberland Basin, for example, via A370, B3128 and B3129 and then A369 to the Portbury interchange to avoid Rownham Hill. We have yet to reach agreement with the police and Somerset County Council, but this, on the evidence I have seen, seems to be the right sort of solution. This would mean that Rownham Hill should be subject to weight restriction in both directions.
My hon. Friend mentioned improvements to the A3128 and A3130. This would require improvements to three junctions involving traffic signals for the B3128/B3129 diversion. This would cost a considerable sum. We are looking at this as a matter of urgency and hope to carry out those improvements if the new route is agreed.
There is the possibility of improving other roads. Clearly within the time-scale they can only be minor improvements. We cannot build great new roads. We are looking at the whole network to see what can be done to eliminate bottlenecks and to improve junctions, and so on. This is being discussed with the Somerset County Council as the highway authority.
The basis of the signing on both the Somerset and Bristol side of the Avon has to be flexibility. We must ensure if we appear to be getting bogged down on one road that the signs are flexible enough to get traffic on to the other. This will be done. Somerset County Council is anxious about the A370 because of its limitations at the moment. Therefore, it clearly does not want that road to be signed as a main road for the motorway. Looking at the map, the proposals I have advanced to get traffic as quickly as we can, by making these relatively minor improvements to the road, up to the M5 and getting the traffic down to the M5 will help.
There is another problem. The South Wales traffic will want to go to the South-West. The only relief possible to Bristol traffic would be the diversion of traffic from South Wales via the M4, M32, the Inner Circuit Road, the A37 to Ilchester and the A303. We are pursuing this with the highway authorities. This is a matter with which hon. Members must bear, because there are to


be more discussions between the interested parties and the police.
I am sorry to have to be the bearer of sad tidings, but I can assure the House I am taking a deep personal interest. There are many highly skilled engineers in my Department working extremely closely with both the local authorities concerned and the police to see that the alternative arrangements we have to make are the best possible not only for the traveller, but for the people who will have to live with the problem for longer than I should wish. I assure my hon. Friend that we are doing everything possible to see that the bridge is completed as soon as may be.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South mentioned a deputation coming to see my right hon. Friend and myself. It is important to take the local people and everyone else into our confidence as soon as possible. In the latter half of next month I should be in a position to say when we have a completion date for the bridge. All I can say at the moment is when the bridge is not to be completed. I hope to have a full-scale presentation in Bristol and I shall invite all hon. Members who have an interest in the area to come along. I shall also invite the appropriate members of the local councils to come along so that we can discuss the matter and they can be given the up-to-date position regarding the bridge and through them the public can be informed. We will also discuss and examine the alternative road proposals so that as far as possible the situation next summer, with the opening of the section of the M5 might in some ways be better than this summer. I assure the House that the meeting will take place as soon as we have the information. I will be taking a close personal interest in the progress not only of the traffic planning and engineering but also the progress of the bridge.
I hope that the nightmares which many of the constituents of the hon. Member for Bristol, South have had to suffer this year will not be so bad next year. I am hopeful that after that, when we have this wonderful new road going all the way down from Birmingham to Devon, at long last Bristol will be able to breathe again.

3.31 a.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not feel boxed in because I have chosen to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, after my hon. Friend has made his pronouncements. I thought it might not be a bad idea if my remarks were not made in the dark.
A lot of what my hon. Friend said must have been news, even if somewhat depressing news, to those who have taken an interest in the matter. However, we cannot but be inspired by the personal interest which my hon. Friend is taking in it. With natural caution, my hon. Friend said that the vital bridge could not be completed by next summer. Certainly he does not want to give an undertaking on which he has to go back. However, he did not completely rule out the possibility that we might, with great good luck arid a lot of hard work, have the use of the bridge in the late part of next summer. I am not asking my hon. Friend to react to that now unless it is to slap me down completely. We would be right in being optimistic if we could possibly see the use of the bridge during the later part of next summer.

Mr. Speed: I do not want any false impression to be drawn from the debate. It is much better to be realistic than to offer pie in the sky. I fear I have to say to my hon. Friend that the bridge will not be open during any part of next summer within the definition of the term "summer". I hope that we will know exactly when it will be open in a few weeks' time. I feel it would be wrong to hold out that thin strand of hope.

Mr. Cooke: If that thin strand of hope is being over optimistic, we must be realistic. It appears that we will not get the bridge at any significant part of the holiday peak next summer, although we may be able to persuade people to travel later if we know we will have the bridge during the late part of next summer.
My hon. Friend rightly pointed out not only the difficulty but the impossibility of any type of temporary bridge, because of the length of the span and the clearance which has to be provided of 100 feet. But I expect my hon.


Friend will know that the Bristol city docks, which would be served by shipping going under the bridge under construction or any temporary structure, are withering in terms of traffic. It is the city's intention to close them down altogether for commercial purposes.
I do not want to make more work for my hon. Friend, but if he found that the permanent bridge could not be completed in any realistic time, because of the difficulties which he has outlined or others which may occur, and the completion date is long delayed, he might consider the possibility of some temporary structure at a much lower level. I do not use the term bailey bridge as a technical term, nor did my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), but there may be a possibility of constructing some form of temporary crossing at a much lower level than 100 feet and the great span which is envisaged for the permanent bridge.
We need no excuse for holding this debate at 25 minutes to four o'clock in the morning, because the constituents of the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks), my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren)—who is unavoidably absent but takes a tremendous interest in the matter—and of mine have had to put up with the thundering traffic passing their doors at this sort of hour, and, for all I know, because the holiday peak is building up, they may be enjoying that misery now. So we are doing our best here to get an answer for them and we are most grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for what he has said.
It has been stressed that tourism and agriculture are the principal industries of the South-West. Of course, a through route motorway spine route is vital, and a great deal of progress has been made. But we have the frustration we are talking about. Looking into the future to make sure that this ambitious plan is not held up by any other foreseen difficulty, will my hon. Friend consider making sure that any of the foreseeable tricky parts of the route are proceeded with with all possible speed? This could, I suppose, mean that bridges, which very often involve difficulty, and other complicated engineering works could be proceeded with even ahead of

the completion or even the starting of some of the long, straight stretches of motorway. The question of land acquisition for a motorway or a new trunk road is often long and tedious, but perhaps the acquisition for the main engineering works could be proceeded with at great speed and enthusiasm and we could get these works done so that there would be no possibility of the sort of hold-up we are now encountering.
I had thought about possible alternative ways of getting to the West Country, but I accept that these could be only a drop in the ocean. I hope that if we are not to have the support of a bridge next year, British Railways will do all they can to get people and their cars into the far South-West, because of the tremendous benefit there would be, even if one is to have the possibility of driving part of the way on a motorway, in going on a train in safety and comfort with one's car. More of this could be done.

Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend has touched on an important point. One of the difficulties is that the motorail service does not run to the far South-West from Bristol as such. It might be that, with the creation of the new motorway network and the opening of the new Parkway station, British Railways will look at this.

Mr. Cooke: British Railways has not always been in the forefront of commercial enthusiasm and have often waited for traffic to occur instead of going out to seek it. I hope that the British Railways Board will hear what has been said and do what it can in this direction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and other of my hon. Friends from the West Country have been very concerned about the effects of holiday traffic pouring off various motorways largely incomplete. In fairness, it must be pointed out to them that their present frustrations should be temporary, although I agree that "temporary" can be quite a long time when we encounter delays of the sort we have had with this bridge. So let us proceed with all possible speed.
Another right hon. Gentleman from the West Country has been brought into a lot of public discussion, or at any rate has been discussed publicly in this matter —my right hon. Friend the Minister for


Transport Industries. I addressed a letter to him the other day to say that no doubt if he could speak freely he would use some unparliamentary language, rather like the sort of things he used to say in Opposition, about the delays over this bridge. But I wrote that in ignorance of two important facts. First, he is not responsible ministerially for what is going on with this bridge—and I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment for the interest he is taking, for it is very much his pigeon. Secondly, I did not know at that time about all the technical difficulties which my hon. Friend has told us about tonight. Had I known these facts, I would not have said what I did in my letter to my right hon. Friend. We are grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for what he is doing.
It will come as no surprise to some of us to learn that he has visited the site and had a meeting with those interested. It is not lack of money which prevents the bridge being completed on time, but considerations of public safety, which must be paramount.
My hon. Friend mentioned labour difficulties which have, I hope, been ironed out. I am sure that some of those involved in these disputes would, if they considered the hundreds of thousands or millions put to so much misery, be prepared to make almost any personal sacrifice to get on with this important engineering work, but I accept that one has got to have design right before proceeding, and my hon. Friend is obviously doing his best.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South will not mind my saying that if he thought the congestion of holiday traffic was in Bristol, South, he must by now be convinced by the Minister and by hon. Members on this side that this is a much bigger problem affecting not only Bristol, South, but that the West, North-West and the whole of the West Country are involved and many more of us are most concerned.

Mr. Wiggin: Not just holiday traffic.

Mr. Cooke: Not just holiday traffic. I am glad my hon. Friend said that, because the lifeblood of the West Country depends on getting holiday makers in and safely out again, and also all our agricul-

tural produce and needs have to travel largely by road, and cannot do it at present.
I am the hon. Member for half the Clifton Suspension Bridge, and I think I am the Member for the whole of the Cumberland Basin complex. I am not challenged by the hon. Member for Bristol, South, on that. We shall not quarrel about responsibility for that.
Dealing with the suspension bridge, there is a great debate about tolls and we must consider the flow of traffic across the bridge. I am not convinced that the collection of tolls even by methods now used does not hold up traffic. It is suggested that to allow traffic freely on to the bridge produces congestion and that people would be stopping on the bridge.
Opposite the gates of Ashton Court, the traffic coming from Cumberland Basin meets the traffic from the suspension bridge. Given some thought, the traffic could filter gently together if it were properly organised, and there is something to be said for getting rid of the toll for the next summer peak period.
I had a reply from another Minister that it would still be possible for the Government to produce money to reimburse the trustees' loss of toll if it were taken off.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I was speaking to a toll keeper a fortnight ago. This toll collection is essential to keep the traffic on the bridge down to avoid more strain on the bridge.

Mr. Cooke: That is the fear: that the bridge will become jammed with traffic solid in both directions. This may be, but it is worth looking into further.
One other thing arises from the Minister's speech. He suggested that some traffic coming from South Wales could be got round Bristol in some way and even mentioned Ilchester as a final point of arrival before going on to the West Country. I beg him to think seriously about the consequences of trying to divert another great pincer movement of holiday traffic into Somerset round Bristol and into the Ilchester district and the effect that that would have on the massive surges of holiday traffic which already seem to take place from the Midlands and Bristol down to Weymouth


which, of course, is a place that I know well, as it is represented by the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) with whom I have certain family connections. As I move frequently from Bristol to Dorset on my way backwards and forwards to my constituency, I know something about the traffic problems in Somerset and Dorset, and they would certainly be aggravated and probably finished off for good if that sort of movement were suggested.
I think that I have said enough to convince my hon. Friend that we feel strongly about this matter and that we are enormously impressed by the interest that he has taken, is taking, and is to take. It is heartening to see an energetic Midlander, if that is the right term, taking an interest in our West Country affairs. Something of the spirit of our local hero, Isambard Brunel, is here with him this evening. I hope that, just as Brunel was not deterred by any temporary difficulties, or engineering difficulties, or any other difficulties for that matter, so my hon. Friend will press on and—who knows? —be rather more successful than he would suggest at present. I know that he is being deliberately pessimistic and cautious and that he has told us the brutal facts, but what happens in future will depend to some extent on the energy of those pursuing the project, and I know that my hon. Friend is not lacking in energy.

SOLICITORS (COMPLAINTS)

3.47 a.m.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important topic, which I know has troubled many hon. Members who would be here in greater numbers but for the lateness of the hour. I have first to declare an interest in that I am a practising barrister. But I hasten to say that I have no reason to complain in any way about the way in which solicitors known to me, whether professionally or personally, handle their business. All my professional clients conduct themselves impeccably.
However, I had occasion earlier this year to take up the case of a constituent who had complained to the Law Society about the conduct of a certain firm of

solicitors. The response that I got from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was disappointing, but I was surprised by the huge volume of complaints which then reached me from all over the country as a result of the publicity given to my Question.
The taxpayer pays more than £12 million, through the Consolidated Fund, to solicitors for services rendered by them in connection with the legal aid and advice scheme. That sum of money represents a large part of the average solicitor's income and, it being public money, one may reasonably say that nowadays it is not as well husbanded as it should be, and it could often even be a corrupting influence. In other respects, a measure of public accountability has been insisted on when large sums of public money have been involved, but in this instance the only sanction is that of control by the professional body, that is to say, the Law Society. I regret to say that I believe that the Law Society's influence has been directed more to discouraging public criticism than to acting in the public interest.
The noble lord Lord Denning said in another place that solicitors formed
the one great profession that is under the control of Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 2nd March, 1972; Vol. 328. c 1229.]
It is formally correct that the Solicitors Act, 1957, governs the profession, but in so far as that Act leaves to solicitors themselves the setting, maintenance and enforcement of professional standards, it is a snare and a delusion. Unlike the Bar, whose work is done in public and whose reputation for integrity stands as high today as ever, I believe that solicitors, operating mostly in private, have steadily become enshrouded in a mist of suspicion because of the volume of genuine and deep grievances held by the public against them.
I do not intend to go into detail with several specific complaints. A large number have reached me in my correspondence. What I am concerned about in this debate and what I find much more serious and ominous is the way in which the Law Society deals with the complaints it gets from the public and also the way in which it deals with applications for grants out of the compensation fund as


a result of the dishonesty of some of its members.
I will quote one example from each class to illustrate my point. Last year a young constituent of mine wished to purchase a house in East London which he believed was under-valued. He agreed to pay the price asked, and he paid a deposit. Solicitors were then instructed on behalf of the vendor who lived abroad. But before completion, the sale to my constituent was called off because the vendor's solicitors produced someone willing to pay a little more. Nothing was said to my constituent about the new purchaser or the new price offered. The solicitors simply said that the sale was off.
From another source my constituent had reason to believe that the solicitors concerned had secretly been in league with the new purchaser. So he, I believe reasonably, wrote to the Law Society suggesting that this conduct on the part of the solicitors was improper. The Law Society went through a form of investigation. The Society wrote to the solicitors concerned, and then sent to my constituent the solicitors' reply. It did not dispute the facts, but the last paragraph of the solicitors' letter ran as follows;
We are surprised at the allegations contained … in the letter … and in our view these are defamatory. Unless they are unconditionally withdrawn then we will have to consider taking the necessary proceedings.
The name of those solicitors is Amhurst Brown. I mention it not because there may be substance in the allegation made against them but because they chose, in a case referred to them privately by the Law Society, improperly in my view to make a threat.
If that was surprising on their part, the terms of the covering letter from the Law Society were astonishing. Although the Law Society knew very well that this was a private person making a private complaint to them on apparently reasonable grounds and, therefore, by any understanding of the principles of law which they exist to serve, a complaint made on a privileged occasion, the Law Society's covering letter went as follows in its penultimate sentence:
I would invite your particular attention to the final paragraph of the solicitors' letter

In other words, the Law Society, the body charged by Parliament with statutory powers over solicitors, not merely accepted the solicitors' view of the matter without further inquiry but connived in a threat of legal proceedings which it knew was an empty threat. Being directed against an apparently humble person living at an East London address, it was, I believe, most improper in the circumstances. If that is how the Law Society deals with complaints from ordinary members of the public, is it surprising that the public tend to view all solicitors with suspicion?
I took the matter up and wrote to the Law Society. I received a reply which I feel justified in describing as a brushing-off letter. There was no denying that the complaint was privileged, but the reference to the threat was said to be
merely to warn the lay complainant should such a warning be necessary".
That, I believe, was a feeble excuse, coming from a professional body supposed to know the law and to be capable of distinguishing between a published allegation and one made to it privately.
I raised the matter in the House on 1st May, and I regret to say that my right hon and learned Friend the Attorney-General gave me what I believe to have been a question-begging reply. Referring to Amhurst Brown, he said:
It was they who made the reference to defamation, and the Law Society, in repeating the letter, repeated that word to the gentleman" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1972; Vol. 835, c. 24–5.]
I find that a very unsatisfactory attitude for my right hon. and learned Friend to adopt.
If it is the practice—and I believe it is —for the Law Society to reject complaints against solicitors with letters which, directly or indirectly, threaten legal proceedings unless those complaints are withdrawn unconditionally, it is a matter of grave consequence. The practice should be stopped immediately, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will at least see to that.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): In view of the extent to which my hon. Friend is founding the case he is making upon the suggestion that it is a practice of the Law Society to respond to compaint in the way of which he has


complained in the one case he has cited, will he tell the House whether he has any evidence of similar phraseology or similar response in any other case?

Mr. Stanbrook: When I said, "If it is the practice—and I believe it is", the suggestion in my mind that it is derives from the same allegation having been made to me by many other complainants in respect of past cases which have been referred to the Law Society and which have been raised with me in correspondence with members of the public who have written to me recently. I have no evidence other than that.
I see no reason to think that the example which I am giving is exceptional. It seems to me to be based upon a type of complaint which must regularly be raised—indeed, a type of complaint which has been duplicated in examples sent to me by members of the public. As I say, I believe it to be a matter of some grave consequence. If it is, in fact, a general practice, it should certainly be stopped immediately. If it is not, this particular case should, surely, be a matter for withdrawal by the Law Society itself.

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry to press my hon. Friend, but I am still not entirely clear whether he has in his possession specific evidence of any other single case in which the response of the solicitors complained against was, "Unless you withdraw unconditionally, we shall start defamation proceedings", which was supported by a letter from the Law Society drawing attention to such a threat. Has he specific examples, with evidence actually available to him, of that kind of matter?

Mr. Stanbrook: I thought I had indicated that I had no other evidence to confirm that this is the practice of the Law Society in general. I have this one case which is authenticated. What leads me to believe that this may be the general practice is the number of other complaints raised with me by people who have previously complained to the Law Society and such evidence as they have given me, which is not accompanied by copies of letters from the Law Society. I am prepared to say that I have no evidence of this being a general practice other than this case itself, but it is a case of a general kind, and there is no reason to suppose that

it is an exceptional case which was dealt with exceptionally. If it is suggested that this is the only case of its kind, then perhaps there is all the more reason for astonishment that the Law Society should have conveyed such a threat in such terms to an ordinary member of the public who wished to make a complaint.
My second example, covering an application to the Law Society for a grant from the compensation fund, was given in another place by Lord Gardiner on 28th March of this year. He quoted the case of a solicitor who embezzled £1,500 which had been entrusted to him by someone who wanted to clear his name. It was all that that individual possessed. An application for compensation from the fund was refused by the Law Society, and no reasons were given.
Why does the professional organisation of a perfectly honourable profession containing thousands of the most upright and public-spirited citizens in this country behave in a way that is calculated to arouse suspicions of its motives and in a way likely to deepen the sense of grievance felt by members of the public against solicitors, both collectively and individually?
The answer, I think, is to be found in the 1957 Act. Unfortunately, when the Act was passed Parliament did not write into it any of those safeguards which nowadays would be thought necessary to protect the public interest. As the Act stands, the tribunals concerned with discipline are composed wholly and exclusively of solicitors. They sit only in private, and they never give reasons for their decisions. Those three features of the present system are, I believe, clearly objectionable and serve to perpetuate the distrust and suspicion surrounding the Law Society.
The Law Society must be aware of that but remains indifferent, apparently, to pleas for reform. The latest such plea was from a committee of Justice which reported in 1970 after two years' study of the problem. In a report entitled "Complaints against Solicitors" the committee noted that the Law Society gets between 4,000 and 5,000 complaints against solicitors every year, of which only 40 or 50 are thought worthy of a formal reference to the disciplinary committee. Perhaps one might justifiably


say that that is not surprising, considering the tactics which appear to be adopted with the initial complaints.
However, the committee's general conclusion, as expressed in paragraph 32 on page 12, is mild. It says:
It is quite clear that a substantial number of complaints are made each year against members of the legal profession, and that a significant number of the complainants are left unsatisfied that their complaints have been fully investigated.
Judging from the letters which have descended upon me recently, I feel that that is an understatement.
The Committee made a number of important and far-reaching recommendations for reform: new machinery to investigate complaints; the participation of laymen in the tribunals; reasons given for decisions; and, perhaps most important of all, the creation of an independent review body. But none of those important recommendations has apparently found favour with the Law Society. We know that, because a Bill before the House which aims to tidy up the provisions of the 1957 Act contains nothing to show that the Law Society is willing to adopt reforms of the type advocated in the Justice report. Perhaps not surprisingly, that Bill has aroused the opposition of certain hon. Members.
In the end the problem resolves itself into one of the difficulty of securing good public relations. The present somewhat arrogant attitude displayed by the Law Society must be changed. In the interests of its own members, I hope that the Law Society will learn that by being seen to serve the public interest it will be serving its own.

4.7 a.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The general point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) about the machinery for investigation of complaints made to the Law Society about solicitors is plainly one which is of interest to the House and people outside, and which well deserves to be raised during a debate of this kind. In raising it, he referred to one case in some detail and to another rather more lightly. I hope to deal with the matter in both its general and its particular sense.
First, I should like to say by way of preliminary that it may seem a little odd to those in the Law Society, who will no doubt read the OFFICIAL REPORT of these proceedings with interest, that two members of the other half of the legal profession should be discussing criticisms made of their half. As members of the Bar, we certainly recognise our own responsibility to our own profession and to the public, and the high obligation on members of all professions entrusted with that kind of responsibility to the public for upholding their professional standards. It is right, also, to acknowledge that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, in the course of his address to the annual general meeting of the Bar last Saturday, specifically referred to one aspect of this. The responsibility for the administration of justice is shared by both halves of the profession. I approach the subject with that very much in mind.
I do not in any sense criticise my hon. Friend for having raised this subject but I find myself disturbed by the style of advocacy he has adopted because he seems to have presented the Law Society not so much in an unfavourable light—the Law Society like any other body is more than prepared to withstand and scrutinise criticism of itself—but in a style which seems to do less than justice to the way in which it tries to carry out its function and its job.
To speak of it, speaking as a member of the other half of the legal profession, as a body that is almost wilfully inward-looking, to imply as he almost did, that the solicitors' branch of the profession was to some extent—I think he used the word "corrupted" or capable of corruption—by the dependence of that half on public funds seems to do ill-service to the case he was trying to present and to the public understanding of this problem and the attempts which the Law Society is making to deal with it.
If I may take his reference to the legal aid fund, for example, of course the funds, civil and criminal, provide a significant proportion of the income of solicitors, but not I think, and I speak from memory, beyond 20 per cent. to 25 per cent.—and it may not be as high as that.
In respect of the administration of the legal aid fund scheme, civil and criminal,


there exists in each case a complaints tribunal established by Statute with representation, in the case of civil legal aid proceedings, of a member of the Lord Chancellor's Department, and of a layman on the criminal complaints tribunal. Any complaint about the disposition or conduct of legal aid matters are dealt with through the statutory machineries established by this House.

Mr. Stanbrook: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that references to this tribunal must be made through the Law Society or the Bar Council?

The Solicitor-General: That is right so far as the Law Society is concerned. The interesting thing is that only a comparatively small number of cases have gone to those tribunals because they are also looked at by the disciplinary committee as well—or as an alternative. At all events, there exists in respect of criminal and civil legal aid an express statutory complaints procedure established by authority of Parliament within a reasonably recent time. It is only with this aspect of the matter that the House is concerned in this debate.
I hope my hon. Friend will forgive my rebuking him, if I can steel myself to such an unfriendly notion at this hour in the morning, because I do not really intend it as more than a modest rebuke that he should have discussed the matter in the way he did. Having said that, I would be failing in my duty if I did not acknowledge and go along with him to this extent, that any one of us, as Members of this House, is bound to feel some anxiety about the number of cases, and I do not want to imply they are more than a handful for each Member, in which we find our constituents anxious about relationships between themselves and one or other solicitor.
I do not mean to imply that this is a matter of widespread or continuous concern, still less do I intend to imply that it is something of which the Law Society is unmindful. But we do find ourselves involved sufficiently often for it to be notable, often as a court of last resort, and to confirm my hon. Friend's general point that there is here a case for continuous vigilance, notably by the legal profession. It is a case which is not disregarded or brushed heedlessly to one side by the Law Society, as my hon.

Friend sought to imply. Inevitably solicitors find themselves more often in the firing line in respect of complaints of this kind. Their profession is 10 times or more larger than ours. They are in daily contact with the public. They work under considerable pressure and do not find it easy to get qualified staff.
It was the kind of facts with which hon. Members on both sides are familiar which no doubt led Justice to establish the committee which investigated this matter some years ago at a time when, I confess, I was a member of the executive of Justice —and I confess it without any apology. Facts of the same kind mean that the problem raised by my hon. Friends is very much in the mind of the Law Society and all of us concerned with the administration of justice.
I turn to the complaint raised by my hon. Friend in relation to the purchase of property in East London. He raised it with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General at Question Time in May this year. It involved the purchase of a house by my hon. Friend's son, I understand.

Mr. Stanbrook: The relationship is not of any significance.

The Solicitor-General: I apologise if my hon. Friend feels that it was wrong of me to mention that, but I thought it right that all the circumstances should be before the House, particularly in view of the extent to which he has seen fit to identify the solicitors concerned.
Beyond the last letter to which my hon. Friend referred, I think that he received a communication from the Law Society making it plain that the solicitors complained of had had the second purchaser of the house introduced to them by the agents for the vendor and had acted in respect of the second purchaser on the instructions of, or certainly as a result of, the communication received from the agents. I understand that no evidence challenging that proposition has been proffered since that fact was made plain by the Law Society on behalf of the solicitors complained of.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General pointed out when the question was first raised by my hon. Friend, since the allegation against the solicitors of serious misconduct, originally made in the letter of complaint, was


admittedly founded on no more than inference, and since the inference seems to have been dispelled, at least in the eyes of anyone who looks at the matter as a whole, by the proposition that the introduction was made by the agents and not in any improper way, it would seem that the matter had been fully investigated by the Law Society and I find it difficult to see how the case against them in respect of the quality of their investigation can be sustained in the light of the facts subsequently revealed.
In the circumstances, one can understand why the firm of solicitors complained or reacted in the way described. As the Attorney-General said on 1st May,
They had given their explanation and they resented the allegation of misconduct which was made against them".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1972; Vol. 835, c. 24.]
I follow the point made by my hon. Friend about the threat of defamation proceedings made by the solicitors in their letter of reply, but if they believe, as the evidence seems to suggest, that the complaint against them is without foundation, it may be understandable and forgivable that they should require it to be withdrawn. Whether or not the Law Society was justified in passing on the letter merely with the comment drawing attention to the threat of defamation proceedings is a separate issue which my hon. Friend has canvassed this morning. It is true, of course, that the occasion of the communication was privileged both ways. It is equally true, however, that if the allegation against the solicitors was not justifiable its repetition in another context could have given rise to liability.
It could be argued, I suppose, that those two elements in the matter could have been explained in the covering letter from the Law Society. Again, one wonders, nevertheless, how far my hon. Friend was entitled to use that one letter arising in the circumstances in which it did as the foundation for the precise charge he made against the Law Society that this was, or could he regarded as, or might be regarded as, an illustration of the normal way in which it responds to complaints because when I pressed him to tell the House whether he had got any further specific examples illustrating that specific point, as I understood him, finally he acknowledged that he had no such;

he inferred from the fact that there were other dissatisfied complainants around that they would have been treated in the same way.
Again, one would be reluctant to accept that propostion upon that basis. As I say, there may be room for some reconsideration of the way in which a letter of that kind from solicitors who believe them selves unjustly complained of is passed on to the complainant, whether that method of passing it on should or should not be adopted in precisely the same form, but I would suggest to the House that the complaint does not justify the wider nature of the attack made by my hon. Friend on the foundation of that case.
On the more general point, it is right to acknowledge that the solicitors' profession is subject to very wide-ranging procedures and machineries for the protection of its clients and the public. It may well be said that it is right and proper that it should be so in view of the figure of between 4,000 and 5,000 complaints made to the Law Society each year, although, again, I think it would have been fairer of my hon. Friend to have acknowledged, having quoted that figure, that the Justice report to which he referred said
between 4,000 and 5,000, of which perhaps only half had any appreciable substance".
But even so, no doubt that figure justifies the elaborate and comprehensive machinery which does exist.
The court itself is responsible for the surveillance of solicitors. Anyone can go to court with a complaint of civil breach or negligence by a solicitor. Solicitors can face criminal proceedings. The court can order them to pay costs and, in certain circumstances, order them to be struck off, although normally the Law Society procedure would be gone through. The court can enforce undertakings of solicitors. The solicitors' profession is regulated by the solicitors' practice rules and the solicitors' account rules. A client who is aggrieved by the size of his solicitors' bill can apply to the Law Society for a certificate to certify whether or not the charges are reasonable, or he can have his bill taxed by the court. There exist also the two different forms of legal aid tribunal which I have already mentioned.
Finally, there is the compensation fund from which a client can receive compensation in respect of his loss. The compensation fund to which all solicitors are required to contribute was established by Statute passed by Parliament. My hon. Friend raised his complaint by reference to what has been said by the noble lord, Lord Gardiner, of the Law Society not giving reasons for the refusal of compensation from the compensation fund. He may be glad to know that this is a matter which obviously deserves consideration and which has been under consideration by the Law Society since it has been raised, and one hope that there may be some progress on that particular front quite shortly. I do not say more about it than that. It is a matter which has been carefully considered.
On the wider question of whether different machinery, or an extension of the existing machinery, is required for investigation of complaints against solicitors, my hon. Friend referred to recommendations in the Justice report. Again, it is important that the House should know that the Law Society, from about the time that the Justice report was published, has been giving close consideration to the whole question of the right machinery for the handling of complaints against solicitors. Throughout its various committees it has looked at a variety of alternatives and variations, and they are still under consideration.
The chairman of the Justice Committee and one or more of his colleagues have met those responsible in the Law Society on more than one occasion to discuss the right approach and the way in which matters can be changed. It is right to acknowledge—not least because, the overwhelming number of complaints that come in in the last resort are found to be without foundation, though they are sometimes disturbing, that it would be difficult to produce a machinery that could be adapted to work on a fail-safe basis.
Suggestions have been made for the involvement of lay members at different levels. It is right to remember that the Justice report did not suggest the inclusion of lay members on the disciplinary tribunal. It suggested a review body, but that might be introducing a lay element, if it can be introduced, at too late a stage

in the process. If one were to suggest the introduction of laymen to process all the four or five thousand cases at the first stage, it is difficult to see how they could be expected to handle the matter at that early sifting stage. To introduce a lay element in a way that would work is not as easy as it would seem. The problems are rather different from those involved in cases which go before other professional bodies. If one has a complaint against other professions, one goes to a solicitor to take up the case on one's behalf. In the present instance one would have to go to a solicitor to take up a complaint against a solicitor—which increases the difficulty of coping with such matters.
It would be quite wrong to suggest that the Law Society has brushed on one side, or has failed arrogantly to respond to, suggestions made in the Justice report or other views on this subject. It must be acknowledged that the situation is not as easy as it looks, and even those responsible for the preparation of the Justice report now acknowledge that it is not easy when it comes down to practicalities.
It is the Government's view that matters of professional conduct should be handled by the professions, if possible without interference by the Government. The professions have long upheld a tradition of responsibility for their own standards and are in practice best able to decide whether their procedures are adequate to cope with cases of misconduct. They are sensitive and indeed must be, to criticisms from outside sources. I suggest that there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that within the limitations of the problem the Law Society is conscientious and meticulous in examining complaints. Furthermore, in matters which do not amount to professional misconduct, but which amount to allegations of negligence it goes out of its way to assist complainants by finding solicitors to act for them. In addition, the Law Society will shortly publish leaflets giving advice to those who seek assistance on ways in which complaints against solicitors can be handled; they suggest how somebody who wishes to raise such a complaint should set about it. I suggest that these leaflets would be of value to hon. Members. That is the way in which


the Government feel the matter should proceed.
I am sure that the Law Society and those in it responsible for these matters will read carefully what has been said in the debate. I hope that I have managed to strike a judicious and constructive posture, if not seeking—because I am sure that the Law Society would not wish me to do so—to defend the Law Society as though everything in its garden was perfect and beyond need of reform. But I hope that I have done justice to the Law Society, as I think it is entitled to have it done, by suggesting that my hon. Friend has rather over-painted the case against it on the basis of the particular cases he cited.
Our experience in the House suggests evidence that there is here a matter about which there should be ongoing concern, but we for our part should recognise that there has been ongoing concern in the Law Society and give it credit for recognising it too and trying, so far and as fast as it can, to improve its existing machinery.

BROADCASTING (INQUIRY)

4.30 a.m.

Mr. Philip Whitehead: It is often said that the hour that is darkest is the hour before the dawn. My hon. Friends and I hope that the Minister for Posts and Telecommunications will be able to bring a little light to these somewhat sombre proceedings, at least in the matter I shall raise this morning, namely, the urgent need for a committee of inquiry into broadcasting.
At this hour our felicitations should be as brief as the speech in which they are contained. But it would be wrong to open the debate without congratulating the Minister on his appointment, on the assiduity with which I observe him to have approached his new task, and on seeing him looking as spry and chipper as usual this morning. In introducing the debate on the need for an inquiry into broadcasting, I hope very much that we shall get a positive reaction from him. I should hate him to remember this debate, in the words of the concluding line of Act I of John Osborne's play "Luther", as the moment

when the praising ended and the blasphemy began.
I hope that the Minister will be positive and constructive in replying to the request, which is, as much as anything else, for more information about the Government's thinking on the matter of an inquiry into broadcasting.
There have been many statements already from the Government Front Bench on the rather dubious nature, as they see it, of the inquiry for which we have been pressing. I shall not bore the House with an account of the way in which the Annan Committee was set up, somewhat late in the day in my view, by the previous Labour Government. Suffice it to say that on 23rd July, 1970 —which was the day before the Summer Recess; in those leisured days the House rose in July—the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway), told me in a written Answer that he was
not persuaded of the value of launching another major inquiry into broadcasting at this time. I propose to invite my Television Advisory Committee to undertake a study designed to identify the main technical questions and to report to me early in the new years. This will provide the basis for a more informed public discussion of the issues."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1970; Vol. 804, c. 189.]
That was two years and one week ago. The "informed public discussion" of the issues has, partly at least, taken place, despite the Government of the day and not with their active encouragement, although there have been subsequent statements by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in the matter of an inquiry. For example, on 15th December last the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said;
I accept that, nearer to 1976, it will be right to look in a comprehensive way at the options which are open. But I do not think that it can be sensible for broadcasting to be in a state of more or less permanent inquiry." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1971; Vol. 828, c. 572.]
No, indeed—but it was not for that that we were asking. On 19th January last the right hon. Member for Chichester said:
I have said on a number of occasions"—
as indeed he had—
that clearly we shall need, nearer to the time, to take a comprehensive look at the options open to us. I do not believe that the interests of anyone, least of all those in broadcasting, would be served if we had six years of inquiry, as the Opposition were proposing when


they set up a Commission in 1970."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 479.]
They were not so proposing. They were proposing an inquiry along the same lines as the three previous inquiries which had taken place.
I believe we have seen a small, but significant, shift of acknowledgment over these two years to the notion that some kind of compresensive look, in whatever form, as the future options open to broadcasting after 1976 may be necessary by the Government.
On 28th June this year the right hon. Gentleman said that he expected to be able to announce a decision shortly. There followed a laconic, but witty, exchange with the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) who asked how shortly was shortly, and the right hon. Gentleman said. "Before very long." So I want to ask today, if it is not a conversation which seems unparliamentary, how short is short? Can the decision be announced now before the Summer Recess?
There has been a roughly 12-year cycle, as is often observed, of inquiries—something which the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor much disliked. He wanted, as indeed the Prime Minister has said, and said in a debate when Leader of the Opposition, to avoid a situation where we were constantly "pulling up the tree to examine the roots".
Nevertheless, it is fair to point out that each of the three previous inquiries into broadcasting—the Ullswater, Beveridge and Pilkington Inquiries—marked a watershed in the history of broadcasting, and each in turn, in an area which is both rapidly expanding and is in a state of constant change and flux, has things to say to us even today.
For example, the recommendations of the Ullswater Committee, which were not acted upon by the then Government, relating to the relay stations and the primitive beginnings of cable relay in this country, are of extreme interest when we consider the experiment which the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor authorised on the possible future of cable, under whose auspices we know not yet, in this country.
Equally, the remarks of the majority report of the Beveridge Committee—we often tend to think of the minority report

to Beveridge as the progenitor of ITV as we know it—and of Sir William Beveridge on the size of the BBC and the dangers of what he called Londonisation and the monopoly, are significant when we confront the possible future of the BBC, as it now is, as the main public service broadcasting organisation in this country employing 25,000 people.
The Pilkington Committee had to examine the options for the television services on UHF as they were to move on to UHF, and it had a wide range of possibilities open to it.
I echo the thought of Mrs. Brenda Maddox, by no means a raving radical, who has just written a comprehensive and lucid study of the technical options open to broadcasting called "Beyond Babel", where she says that the choices are immeasurably wider than ever before the Pilkington Committee and there is no such thing as pure technology. Therefore, to put things to the Technical Advisory Committee and say it is the technical options which should be examined at this time, which was the drift of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor's remarks on 23rd July, 1970, is entirely to misunderstand the nature of the dilemma facing those of us in this House who have to secure, as best we can, the right choices for broadcasting. Those choices are inextricably political and social as well as technical.
It is doubly important because of the background of the times. The background is of philosophical uncertainty about the nature of broadcasting and its rôle in society as well as of brash technical opportunity.
Professor Stuart Hall in the Listener made a true statement when he said;
Virtually any national emergency is almost immediately converted into an emergency within and about broadcasting.
He explained that as being because of the nature of the fractured consensus of our present politics. The media have operated for a long time within a generally agreed consensus about the dominant social institutions. If it breaks or if it is under threat, as some would argue that it is now, the media and broadcasting generally are under fire for reflecting both the spokesmen of the institutions and those who attack them. Many of the current attacks on the BBC


reflect the outrage of the Right at the subversive rôle of broadcasting and the outrage of the Left at its complacent authority-reinforcing function.
In such a climate all decisions about the future structure of broadcasting are doubly difficult to take, especially if Governments attempt to take them on partisan lines without dispassionate advice. Yet there are matters which can be put to the proof by exhaustive analysis.
I submit—I believe that this would also be the view of my hon. Friends—that the matter is best suited to investigation and inquiry. There are a number of question which should be examined, and time is slipping away. The phrase about the comprehensive study of the possibilities nearer to 1976 was all very well in 1970, but we are already nearer the end than the beginning of 1972.
If there was to be any kind of inquiry, whether a full inquiry on the lines of the Beveridge or Pilkington Committees or a small tightly knit group of advisers brought in by the Minister, it would have to take a reasonable time. The Pilkington Committee took two years. It might take less time, but it would have to take a reasonable time for its deliberations. There would then have to be a public debate not only about its conclusions but upon the conclusions which the Government of the day drew from the report. Such conclusions are not always 100 per cent. favourable, as was the case with the Beveridge and Pilkington Reports.
A number of questions could be answered by such an inquiry. For example, is the present method of financing public service broadcasting the right one? Many people now believe that after 50 years the licence, because it is a regressive tax and in many ways difficult to collect, has had its day. What, if any, should be the rôle of advertising in the financing of broadcasting? Should it have the rôle which has been cast for it under successive television Acts and now under the Act which has set up commercial radio, or should advertising be in some way limited or expanded and given a rôle within the financing of the BBC? Should there be competition between public service and commercial

networks in the present form, involving, at is often does, wasteful overlaps?
In the Daily Telegraph on 12th May Mr. Sean Day-Lewis argued persuasively for a British broadcasting authority, a central planning authority controlling a four network system. I do not in any of these instances suggest that we have the answers or that we would come up, from either a party or a broadcasting point of view, with a bad series of answers to any of these questions. I merely hope to indicate that we are on the right track in asking the questions, that we are identifying the areas within which, given the existing broadcasting system, some conclusions must be drawn.
Remembering the failings of independent television and the flaws in the ITA plan for so-called ITV 2 which were expressed in the House on 15th December, 1971, I think that that brief debate, which was the nearest to a public debate which we have had on any aspect of broadcasting in recent times, reinforced the work for a comprehensive inquiry. To ITV 2 the overwhelming Press reaction was that there should be no further allocation of channels before a full public inquiry. It is also the view of the Federation of Broadcasting Unions, the ACCT Television Commission, set up after the scrapping of the Annan Commission, and even of papers like Television Mail which are clearly linked to advertising agencies and the commercial element in broadcasting.
The alterations which Parliament has willed and enacted in broadcasting, preempting an inquiry, if there were to be a comprehensive inquiry, fill me with foreboding. One observes with some dismay the IBA circular for commercial radio which has just come out saying, among other things, that there are to be nine minutes of advertising an hour instead of the six which most of us expected, on the television analogy, would be allowed, although we were assured in the Standing Committee that it should be left to the good sense of the authority. Also, national advertising to be permitted will be lengthy. What sort of community service is this to be? Perhaps we should have a better idea if that were also the subject of examination including the future of radio generally and the relationship of the new stations with the BBC stations by 1976.
I now turn to the question of technical innovation. The Minister only last month licensed the beginning of experimental programmes on a very small scale by Greenwich Cable Vision Limited. Cable television in one form or another through relay companies, which has existed a long time, is here to stay. Should we have an integrated system of broad band communication, or the piecemeal development of relay companies acting as common carriers and developing along the present lines from, perhaps, the present companies? The Post Office Engineering Union has advocated the former and I do not think that I would be unfair to say that probably the ideology of the Conservative Party would suggest the latter, with private enterprise relay companies rather like the present ones operating on an ad hoc basis as their system is seen to be working wherever profit can be found. It seems to me of crucial importance that we should make not the most partisan choice, the choice which most appeals to us depending on which side of the House we sit, but the best choice for broadcasting and the community and the least wasteful.
Equally, we should consider what if any the relation should be between the cable companies and the over-the-air broadcasting networks as we have them. The BBC is known to be extremely hostile to the expansion of cable, but we should be looking at the nature of the relationship between over-the-air broadcasting and the various cable systems and should be learning if we can from the American experience, which in some degree has something to teach us in this respect.
It is similarly the case with satellites. The right hon. Gentleman said recently that our investment in satellites and Intelsat was going up. We want to know what we are getting and also what precisely is the rôle of British broadcasting to be in, for example, a European satellite. If a European satellite is put up, is there to be or may we look forward at some stage in the not-too-distant future to there being a linked European television system? If that is so, would that system be from the satellite to ground stations and then on to one of the bands, perhaps one of the released UHF bands for eventually a fifth television channel in this country? Or could we look forward to

direct satellite domestic receiver communications?
What rôle would the Government have? What, considering the considerable sums involved, would be the best role for this country? Should there be an attempt to standardise video cassettes so that the utterly incompatible systems now being developed do not merely eliminate each other in a jungle warfare fight to the finish? As the cassette goes on sale and print functions of broad band communications are developed, what rôle should broadcasting have? Will it move into a position much more analagous to that of publishing now in terms of what can be said and shown?
The Technical Advisory Committee can produce a technical prospectus. No doubt the Minister can tell us that, but a public debate and inquiry could do still more. An inquiry could measure opportunity against cost, political and social. An inquiry should also get us away from the problem of the recurring inquiry every 12 years, which means that the broadcasting institutions have only just settled down from the one before when they have to pull themselves together to deal with another inquiry. Another way would be to leave us with some permanent commission of inquiry to provide evidence and analyses for the Minister of Posts of the day about the technical possibilities in an ongoing sense.
We want to provide, in the broadcasting system in this country, not only a wider range of genuine choice, influence and control, but to provide meaningful systems to meet the needs of the time.
Edward R. Murrow said:
This system can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can only do so to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely lights and wires in a box.
If we leave the matter to the possibilities and options open, we will merely be counting the lights and wires in the box.

4.52 a.m.

Mr. John Golding: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) I should like to begin from the answer to the Question he put on 22nd July, 1970. He has already told us that in his reply, the right hon. Member for Chichester


(Mr. Chataway), then the Minister, said that he proposed to invite the Television Advisory Committee to undertake a study designed to identify the main technical questions and to report early in the New Year. That would presumably mean January, February, or March, 1971. That early report is still awaited.
The Minister went on to say in that reply that this technical inquiry would provide the basis for more informed public discussion on the issue. In this respect I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North. I do not think an informed public discussion has taken place on the technical aspects of broadcasting. In fact, there are hon. Friends of ours who are yet to be informed on this question.

Mr. Whitehead: With respect, I did not say that it had. I said that the only public airing or debate there had been was in the document "ITV 2".

Mr. Golding: It is essential, but in all discussion on broadcasting which I have attended, the technical aspects are usually very much neglected although they are so fundamental.
The Minister, in July 1970, went on to say that he would consider after the Technical Advisory Committee's report, and after public discussion of the issues raised, whether an inquiry into the structure of broadcasting is desirable and, if so, what form it should take.
I was very pleased with that Answer then, because I thought that a technical inquiry was fundamental and that we were going to have it early and that almost inevitably we would then have some form of inquiry into broadcasting. But it has not yet arrived and the discussion has still to take place. The importance of today's debate is that it is an opportunity to impress upon the Minister the need to publish the technical inquiry report and to establish his major committee as quickly as possible.
This Session I have had the pleasure of serving on the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, which examined the ITA. It will have reported before the end of the Session but, of course, the rules of the House forbid my saying what is to be in that report, although I am able to say that it will be a report that the

Minister should study in some detail. Those of us who served on that Committee thought that we should be able to finish our inquiry quickly, that it would be a short inquiry slotted between two other inquiries. But it did not turn out like that, even though the inquiry was focused solely on the ITA and had to accept the present law as its terms of reference. That inquiry took a considerable time.
Having taken part in that, I am convinced that a considerable time will be required by any further inquiry into either the ITA or the BBC, whether it is a small or large committee that makes the inquiry. The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries was a small committee, but its inquiry still took a considerable time.
One thing that has emerged in the past year is that the former Minister's view that the industry was in no hurry for an inquiry was wrong. The industry is saying, "If we are to have an inquiry at all, the more quickly we have it, the better". The industry wants to know by 1974, if possible, what is to happen in 1976.
The former Minister gave the impression that we were reporting for 1976, but in the industry's view that is a nonsense. The industry wants to know well in advance what is to happen in 1976 and it therefore wants the report in its hands by 1974, and that is reasonable. If on that basis we are to give a committee 18 months in which to report, we need to establish an inquiry now so that it may report by the end of 1974. That is the time scale. The Minister should be announcing the terms of reference of some committee of inquiry as quickly as possible.
The former Minister said that we were to have a committee of inquiry into the technical aspects first and that he would later decide, in the light of public discussion of that report, whether to have an inquiry. I was pleased by that, but I would not hold the same view today.
I still feel that the technical considerations are very important. My hon. Friend has mentioned that I am an officer of the Post Office Engineering Union, and I believe that it is important that we should have an integrated communications system. It is very important that radio


transmissions in this country be controlled by a unitary authority, and I would prefer that unitary authority to be the Post Office. This would be a very important step forward. I also believe that it would be valuable to have an inquiry into the technical reasons for this.
I have been impressed during the last 12 months by the argument that the technical quality of television pictures is well controlled by the ITA and BBC engineers. I agree that the technical quality is well controlled, but the quality of the content is not. There is an urgent need for an inquiry into the quality of television programmes in this country. Whenever one refers to programme content, people put up their hands in horror and say that the politicians are trying to interfere, but I think nevertheless that we must have such an inquiry.
We should recognise that in television there are three jobs to be done—to inform, to educate and to entertain. I submit that in the world of entertainment the standards of television are far too low and it is our responsibility to tell the television authorities. We have got to challenge what has become for the BBC and the ITA the be all and end all—namely, the system of judging by ratings, and adopting commercial criteria on every occasion. When we consider the charters and the relevant legislation under which the ITA operates we find that Parliament has said that due regard must be had to quality. Yet when we look at what actually happens, we find that these absolute standards are totally disregarded. The only thing that seems to matter is the rating. The only factor that seems to carry any weight with those who are responsible for television standards is the number of viewers who watch certain programmes.
It seems to me that the argument has shifted from how one can establish and maintain absolute standards to the subject of which ratings are the more scientific. I do not think that such a consideration is particularly important, because by becoming involved in this kind of argument one accepts the standards of the present television controllers who see their responsibility as attracting as many eyes as possible—I say "eyes" rather than "minds"—to watch a programme during peak viewing time.
There is a need for an inquiry into quality as opposed to considerations of technical change. Television is becoming so important in our lives that I do not think we can leave the present television controllers to go unchecked for year after year, without subjecting their work to public scrutiny.
It is right that people in television should exclude politicians from constant interference, but they, as people in the communications business, should be as subject to scrutiny as are Members of the House of Commons. We are subject to a great deal of scrutiny regarding how we exercise our responsibility to the community, and that is right. I concede that it may be argued that politicians are the wrong people to subject the media to scrutiny, but that is not to say that they should be completely exonerated from it.
They have a great public responsibility, and from time to time the way in which they exercise it should be scrutinised. I see this as one good reason for having a thorough-going public inquiry as soon as possible. I hope that the Minister will tell us that his committee of inquiry is to be established, that the technical report will be published, and that there will be public discussion of these matters as soon as possible.

5.7 a.m.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: We are all indebted to my hon. Friend the Member of Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) for initiating this debate, which gives us an opportunity to hear the Minister. I believe that it will he the right hon. Gentleman's first speech in the House on broadcasting matters, though he and I have faced each other across the Floor on many occasions at Question Time, and I join my hon. Friends in welcoming him to his place this morning. We look forward to hearing how he sees the issues which we have raised in the period up to 1976 when the Charter will have to be looked at again.
It is important that we listen to what a wide range of people have to say about the media in the pre-1976 period. We all have a point of view. Whether professional experts or simple laymen, a great many people wish to contribute to a careful consideration of the whole subject, and the more so since in recent years


the tendency has been for the channels of communication in this country to narrow, with newspapers disappearing and, to some extent, the other media narrowing as well. I should like the widest possible range of people to be consulted.
This is an existing time in communications. All sorts of possibilities—some of which, frankly, are beyond me and, I imagine, beyond many hon. Members —could be considered, and it is right that we should have a far-reaching inquiry. We have had three such inquiries in the past, and they provided a wealth of information and opinion which has been exceedingly useful to the House and the country and—I say this with no disrespect to the Minister—to the Government of the day. I see great value in having a similar committee of inquiry now, even wider-ranging than that envisaged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) when he was Minister.
It is clear to most of us that pre-1976 we shall have to hear from the Minister some idea of what he proposes to do. There will have to be some kind of inquiry, as was envisaged by his predecessor, but what we are concerned about is the timing of such an inquiry, the scope of it and its composition.
I should like to think that the committee will be broadly based. I have sometimes heard the suggestion floated in political circles that it should be a small group of specialists in broadcasting —perhaps five people. I think that I saw something on these lines in a Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) some time ago. In his Bill on public service broadcasting the hon. Gentleman envisaged a small group of people considering the problem. I have looked at the composition of the last three inquiries, and I have formed the opinion that because they were broadly based and consisted of specialists in broadcasting who had other interests as well, this was of great benefit at the end of the day.
I do not think that the committee should do a rushed job. I should not want it to do its work within six months or a year, merely collecting the evidence that is already to hand. I hope that it will listen carefully to representations

made by all sorts of people, perhaps as the Fulton Committee did, for about two years, and even visit other countries to see how things are done there. The committee would then report and its views would be aired throughout the country so that people had an opportunity to discuss them. The report would then be debated in the House and the Government of the day would be given time to bring in the necessary legislation by 1976. Allowing a time-scale of that kind for the committee to do its job as thoroughly as it has been done in the past, it should get down to it as quickly as possible.
My hon. Friends have indicated the scope of the inquiry which they would like to see. They hit the nail on the head on several matters. We all have our own points of view, but I think it is fair to say that whatever we may think of the present organisation, or what we think of the BBC and the IBA, we all have thoughts on how they should operate in the post-1976 period.
The Minister's predecessor said that constant inquiries into the BBC did not do any good for the morale of the staff. Having heard a number of people who work for the BBC talk about their probems, I think that they woud like a committee to inquire into the whole structure of the corporation. There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who think that the BBC is too large and would like to break it up. Others feel that the base is fair and that we merely need to trim it.
There are other points that one could make about the structure of the Corporation. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North said that we ought to be considering the whole question of financing of the BBC. A number of us have been troubled in recent months about concession licences for old people and so on. These are all bound up with the question of finance and the independence of the BBC. It has often been said that the licence system was fair to operate in the days when only a select few owned television and radio sets. It is at least worth examining the system. I am not putting this forward as an official Opposition view, but 50 years after the setting up of the Corporation at least it is time for someone to look at the whole question of financing. When there are so many complaints for people like the Chairman


of the BBC about money and the associated problems, we should see whether we are financing it as adequately as we should and whether would do it in the right way.
Finance is one of the things that trouble many people in the country about television. Before taking over my present responsibilities as an Opposition spokesman on broadcasting, I had two thoughts on broadcasting. One was that the licence fee should be as low as possible and the other was that the television programmes should be a great deal better. I now know that there is much more to broadcasting than that.
I move now to the question of the IBA. Here, too, there is room for an inquiry. I should like to think that the whole relationship between the IBA and the companies will be looked at once again. The question of financing comes up again. Are we doing it in the right way? The Ministers predecessor promised a statement on the financing of the IBA in the fairly near future and on whether the levy was right. When he told us of the changes in financial matters some months ago, he said that he would look at the levy question. Perhaps we could hear from the Minister in the near future how he proposes to operate this. It is something that troubles us.
Will the other points which have been canvassed on both sides of the House in recent months be the subject of an inquiry of the kind suggested? The right hon. Gentleman knows the pressure on him from many of his hon. Friends for a broadcasting council. This may be one of the things that a committee could consider.
There is also the question of whether the fourth channel should be given to either of the two present organisations or should be taken up by another organisation. There is a great deal of difficulty about the fourth channel. I do not understand all the technicalities, but there are parts of the country which do not understand all the technicalities, but it is a little hard that other people should be talking of having a fourth channel when many of us throughout the country can barely get one.
Both of my hon. Friends referred to some of the exciting prospects, such as new techniques of cable television and

video cassettes. These matters have been discussed by colleagues in the House, and the Minister's own committee on technical matters is presumably examining some of them. I know that it is very difficult to arrange debates on broadcasting and Post Office affairs, but it would be helpful to have from time to time reports on what the committee is doing. If not, this is another matter which could be referred to the Commission.
I am sorry about two things. I am sorry that the Minister's predecessor should have pre-empted some of the decisions that could have been taken by the Commission. It would be wrong to set up a system of commercial radio prior to an investigation by an inquiry. My view is that it would be much better to have the inquiry and then, if the Minister was hell-bent on having radio on a commercial basis, to fit it in somehow afterwards. The same thing applies to the licences granted for the experimental stations. We have far too little information about the nature and control of some of these activities and therefore we have these two important areas which have been pre-empted in some way.
Almost everyone to whom I have spoken, and I speak to many with expertise in this area, has lots of exciting ideas for the post-1976 period. I cannot see why we cannot have an inquiry such as has been held in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North said that the Prime Minister, when Leader of the Opposition, used to talk about pulling trees up and looking at the roots every 10 years. Those of us who are gardeners know that it is not necessary to pull up the roots to see if things are all right. I have been growing roses for many years and, just by looking at the flowers, and if I see that they look a little dusty I do something about it. I spray them or cut them down, and I do not need to pull up the plants by the roots.
We are not asking for this, We are asking that there would be an examination in depth. That does not mean that we want to destroy the whole structure of broadcasting. There is nothing wrong in listening to what people have to say. I am all for this kind of participation, particularly with communications which is an exceedingly important subject. I


hope that we will not commit our successors to having the fullest possible inquiry. There is a clear duty on the Minister to convince the House and country by his arguments that the steps which he and his colleagues will take will be adequate to deal with the problems in the 1976-plus period.
So far I have not been persuaded that the decision not to hold an immediate inquiry is to the benefit of communications. I hope that the Minister will say something about how he sees the need for an inquiry and how he proposes to tackle it.

5.24 a.m.

The Minister for Posts and Telecommunications (Sir John Eden): The House has been treated to three thoughtful speeches made all the more remarkable by the fact that they took place at about five o'clock in the morning. This is a tribute not only to the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) but to the great significance and importance of this subject. I accept that it is of the greatest possible significance and I think hon. Gentlemen are right to press me for answers about how we are to proceed to reach conclusions in the post-1976 period. They have reminded the House of the decision taken by the last Government to invite Lord Annan to begin an inquiry which I presume would have been on much the same model as the previous inquiries mentioned by the hon. Member for Derby, North. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Pilkington inquiry took two years. If the Annan inquiry had gone ahead as planned, it would have begun in 1970 and would now have been coming to an end. It is still four years from 1976.
I accept what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) said, that the broadcasting authorities—those engaged in this work—need to know before 1976 the environment and circumstances in which they will be required to operate after 1976. As he said, many of them feel that ideally they should know by 1974. I have publicly recognised that they need to know well in advance, not simply for the satisfaction of knowing what will happen, but for eminently practical reasons of organisation and preparation for programmes, booking of artists, and a whole host of

other factors which must be dealt with many months—over a year in many cases—in advance of the performance and broadcasting date.
I have also said that I am aware of the general interest among those who follow our proceedings in knowing the Government's decision on this matter sooner rather than later. The hon. Member for Derby, North reminded me of an exchange which I had with the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) and asked me how short was "short". I repeat that I shall make an announcement about this question as soon as I am in a position to do so. Let me explain what I mean by that.
My predecessor, the present Minister for Industrial Development, invited the Television Advisory Committee to investigate the technical aspects of broadcasting and the implications which they might have for the future of broadcasting in the decade following 1976. I hope to have its report in my hands this autumn. It will be of some significance. It will cover many of those topics instanced by hon. Members, especially by the hon. Member for Derby, North. The committee is looking into such questions as the development of video cassettes, the significance of satellites on a European as well as a United Kingdom basis, and the development of cable communications. It is absolutely right that we should have this information of a technical nature separated from the other matters which I shall mention later so that we can judge to what extent they will influence the shape of broadcasting from 1976 onwards.
I have already said publicly that the first indications are that the technical developments are probably already very well known. What is at issue is the extent to which finance will be made available to bring these developments forward into common service sufficient to make a marked impact on the structure and organisation of broadcasting from 1976 onwards. It is possible that they will not have a very major effect, though this is not to rule out that in certain situations, certain localities, certain circumstances, they will be called into use quite considerably, but by and large it is possible that they will not have a very major impact.
If the final conclusions of Sir Robert Cockburn's committee do point to this, then I think it is for serious consideration whether it would be wise at this stage to have that same sort of deep-seated inquiry as has taken place before in the form of Pilkington or Beveridge, because a great part of the technical discussion would by this means have already been isolated, and the general range of opportunities and options and assessments and the likely impact of them would have already been examined.
As a result of the report, those factors will later this year certainly become the subject of informed public debate. When we have that we will then be in a very good position indeed to judge to what extent we need to add to that a further form of investigation on these other matters such as the extraordinarily difficult question, raised especially by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie), about the need to scrutinise the quality of material actually broadcast. I am deliberately trying to separate these two things, because they are two such totally different things, and I believe that if this is done in the way I am indicating we may well find that something very much more limited in the form of an inquiry, if there is to be one at all, would be acceptable and would meet the case.

Mr. Whitehead: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that falling between these two is at least one category, namely, the allocation of the fourth uhf television channel and that allocation may be said to be analogous to the main example considered by Beveridge, which was the provision of a competitive service, and the main subject considered by Pilkington, which was the destiny of the third channel?

Sir J. Eden: I think the hon. Member is absolutely right. If I had to choose into what part consideration of the use of the fourth channel should fall, it would come within the second part, not the wholly technical section.
The hon. Gentlemen between them have covered in a very comprehensive way certainly most if not all of the options which are open. They have referred not only to the technical factors such as the Greenwich cable television

experiment, and where that might lead us, but video-cassettes and satellites and so on, which I have already referred to. They have also mentioned the question of what use to make of the fourth channel, and whether it should go ITV 2. If so, we should consider whether it should go to existing programme companies or to other programme companies; whether it would not better be used for a separate educational channel; or whether there is not some special consideration in the circumstances affecting Wales which could be assisted by means of a fourth channel.
These are all matters which are already under active debate: I know that this is so because of the strength of representations which are made to me on this subject. They are not factors which would be greatly assisted by a Pilkington type inquiry, because the collection of an enormous amount of material has already come forward to my Department on all these points.
The material needs to be brought together in a form which would facilitate public debate on these subjects. This is the major question which the Government still have to answer. We have not yet answered it, largely because we are moving close to the time when some part of this subject will be dealt with by the report of the Television Advisory Committee. It would be premature now to decide the exact form of machinery for arriving at decisions. But I accept that it is beyond question that the future of broadcasting is of the greatest possible importance and that the way of deciding on it should turn on the options available for the future and the best way of ensuring informed public debate about them.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) mentioned the desirability of establishing a broadcasting council, an idea which has been advocated on many occasions. It has its proponents and its opponents. The case for and against has already been argued publicly. This is an issue which needs to be brought forward in such a way that it will concentrate further debate.
It is absolutely right to say that another question which could be considered is the financing of the BBC. The hon. Member for Rutherglen referred to the levy on IBA. We have already made clear that this is to continue, but this does not mean that for all time it will


be in exactly its present form. None the less, this is something which is to be continued.
The most important of all the problems which have been raised in this short debate are the quality of programmes; the need to ensure the maintenance of standards; the evidence which many hon. Members have of fairly widespread public disquiet about the impact of television on them and their families; the penetration of this powerful medium of communication into their own homes and lives; and the influence which broadcasters can have on the conduct and outlook of children. These are factors of the most supreme importance which, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme very fairly recognised, need to be handled, by Members of Parliament especially, with great sensitivity and care.
What all of us surely are looking for here is a recognition by those who have the opportunity to use this medium of communications of the great responsibility they hold. What strikes me is that, at the end of one's contemplation of all the range of options, the most important factor that we should have in mind is the interest of the viewer in the provision of the highest possible standard in broadcasting that is presented to him. There are many millions of ordinary viewers and listeners. They all have different tastes, interests and aspirations. It is a difficult factor, therefore, for any person, or even for any group of people, however widely drawn or however broad their outlook on life, to be able to be the effective arbiters in this whole question of standards.
I thought the other day that Huw Wheldon in a broadcast I saw in which he was in discussion with someone else, very interestingly pinpointed the objective that he had when he said—I am only paraphrasing from memory—that what really gives him most satisfaction of all is to have the highest rating for a programme of the highest quality. The two things must go together; not just the pursuit of rating for its own purpose, because that is not the ultimate goal, or should not be, at any rate certainly in public service broadcasting, but the association of that with the quality of the content.
I agree very much with the hon. Member for Derby, North in particular, that the issues before us must not be resolved on the basis of any partisan choice. The Government recognise their responsibility nationwide in the decisions which have to be taken, and it is because we do this and take this as seriously as we are doing that we want to ensure—perhaps moving more slowly than many would wish us to do—that we reach the point where there is the most informed public debate on what the future should be from 1976 onwards. I recognise that this should happen before very long, but that does not mean that it should be rushed. It is far too important a matter for that.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT (SECTION 22)

5.45 a.m.

Mr. Greville Janner: I am pleased to have the opportunity, even at this hideous hour, to raise the unfortunate way in which the Industdial Relations Act is working concerning the dismissal of employees.
Certain sections of the Act concerning unfair dismissal were almost welcomed by the bulk of the population, they having been part of the programme of the Labour Party, but few thought that they would work out so unfairly in practice.
Section 22 of the Act gives the right to an employee not to be unfairly dismissed, and Section 24 provides:
In determining for the purposes of this Act whether the dismissal of an employee was fair or unfair, it shall be for the employer to show—

(a) what was the reason for, if there was more than one, the principal reason for the dismissal, and
(b) that it was a reason falling within the next following subsection, or some other substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which that employee held."

So far so good. The employer shoulders the burden of showing that the dismissal was fair and the reason for it: lack of capability or qualifications, misconduct, redundancy, or illegality.
Then subsection (6) produces one of the longest and most badly drafted sentences in the whole Act. It is not


only badly drafted, but it is the epitome of pomposity. It reads:
Subject to subsections (4) and (5) of this section, the determination of the question whether the dismissal was fair or unfair, having regard to the reason shown by the employer, shall depend on whether in the circumstances he acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee; and that question shall be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case.
In other words, if the dismissal was fair, it was fair; if it was unfair, it was unfair. That is all it is saying in many more words.
The view taken by various academic lawyers is that this shifts the burden of proof on to the employee to show that in practice the dismissal was unreasonable. I do not take that view. I consider the burden still rests on the employer. It is said that apparently tribunals take the opposite view. I should welcome the opinion of the Minister on how it should be interpreted.
However that may be, we now have had some 2,500 cases in which employees have alleged that they have been unfairly dismissed. Of those cases that have reached the court—I do not know how many there are, but perhaps the Minister will tell us—it is estimated that 30 per cent. of the claimants succeed. In other words, there is a 70 per cent. failure rate. If so, it is monstrous. I should not be surprised if it were true, because when cases reach the tribunals employers generally turn up with an array of legal talent paid for by them and the employee generally turns up unrepresented. Indeed, it is the clear view of the tribunals, expressed in many cases through their apparent aggravation and irritation with those lawyers who appear before them, that these are courts where palm tree justice ought to be dispensed and it would be better if the lawyers kept out because then the tribunals could deal with the cases much quicker. The lawyers do not take that view. They know the complexity of the legislation. Nor do the employers take that view, because they want to protect their interests. The employees do not receive legal aid; they have to pay for representation out of their own pockets. I should like an assurance that the Department will look into the problem of representation before

these tribunals in the light of the high failure rate of claims.
So we have the position that, against a background of continued monstrously high unemployment, the cushion for the employee who is unfairly dismissed is not operating as it should. There is a tremendously high failure rate of claims with employees being unrepresented and employers being represented.
I should like to know the statistics. How many employers are going to court represented and how many employees try to obtain representation? The Act has been in operation since 28th February and there is no reason why we should not know the facts. How many cases are failing and how many people are represented? What is the co-relation between the two?
The matter does not end there. Suppose that an employee is unfairly dismissed and the tribunal accepts that he has been unfairly sacked. As Lord Justice Sachs put it on one occasion, he has then got what amounts to property in his job. If the tribunal says that his property has been unfairly taken away, will he get his money and to how much is he entitled? What does Parliament say that he should get? The compensation provision is contained in Section 116. The Section states that the aggrieved party is entitled to such amount as the court or tribunal considers just and equitable in all the circumstances having regard to the loss which he has sustained and any consequences of the matters to which the complaint relates.
He has to prove his loss. It is not like redundancy payment which he would get in any event. The man who is made redundant and gets another job at a higher rate of pay the next day will get redundancy pay, but one gets compensation if unfairly dismissed only if one suffers loss. The Section then states that the loss shall include:
… any expenses reasonably incurred by him in consequence to which the complaint relates and loss of any benefit which he might reasonably be expected to have had …
So far so good. However, there are two provisos, both of which require thought, care, consideration and understanding by the employee. The same rule concerning the duty of a person to mitigate his loss applies as in the case of damages recoverable under the common law of


England, Wales or Scotland. The Section states that he must be able to prove, if out of work, that he has taken all proper, due and reasonable steps to obtain other work.
That is fair enough, provided that he knows that the burden of proof rests upon him. Very often a person arrives at the tribunal and is incapable of discharging that burden simply because he did not know about it and no one had advised him that he would have to discharge it before the tribunal. The second provision states:
Where the Industrial Court or industrial tribunal finds that the matters to which complaint relates were to any extent caused or contributed to by any action of the aggrieved party in connection with these matters … the Court or tribunal shall reduce its assessment to such extent as, having regard to that finding, the Court or tribunal considers just and equitable.
I should like to know what the Minister considers that means. Apparently the tribunals are saying that it means that if a man was unfairly dismissed one has to see whether the employers had some justification for the dismissal, in which case the compensation which they have to pay is reduced proportionately to the employee's wickedness which gave rise to the unfair dismissal.
Either dismissal is fair or unfair. If it is fair, well and good, and the employee gets nothing. If he has been dismissed unfairly, robbed of his job, thrown on to the labour market and deprived of his employment, he is entitled to compensation.
Apparently the tribunals are saying that that means that the employee can be held partially liable. They can say that it was partly unfair but mostly fair, and apparently they can draw some kind of line between fairness and unfairness and penalise the employee. To take a perfectly ordinary case, if an employee is dismissed after his employer has shown dissatisfaction with the way the employee is doing his job, the employer may be faced with a claim for damages for wrongful dismissal. In that case the employee has to show that he was wrongfully dismissed. In other words, he has to show that he had done nothing which amounted to repudiation of his contract of service. If he shows that he is entitled to his damages, that is the finish. If he

goes before the tribunal to claim compensation and not damages for unfair dismissal, apparently the Section is being interpreted as meaning that if he were guilty of misconduct but it was not serious enough to warrant dismissal, nevertheless that has to be taken into account when assessing his compensation. I suggest that that cannot be correct, and if it is correct we should know. What is the Minister's view in that regard?
We then turn to Section 118. Here we have the great fraud of the Act. Here we have the mirage par excellence. Here we have the greatest confidence trick produced by the Act. It says in broad terms that a person may recover not more than

"(a) the amount which, in his case, represents 104 weeks' pay, or
(b) £4,160, that is to say, 104 x £40, whichever is the less."

The amount an employee should be able to obtain is £4,160. That is his cushion, his two years' compensation. Out of work, one cannot get more than £40 a week. If one is out of work for two years, one should get £40 a week if one has been unfairly dismissed. This is as important to the man at the top as it is to the man at the bottom, for this is the age of executive unemployment. A man can be thrown off the board of directors. Forty pounds a week for two years is valuable to a man. It is crucial. This is the famous £4,000.
But I understand that not one single solitary person out of the 2,500 who have claimed that they have been unfairly dismissed has got £4,000 or anything like it. Is this true? If it is true, does the hon. Gentleman accept that this is a fraud on the public, that it is a shameful and disgraceful state of affairs that the figure is presented as the maximum which a person can obtain, because it was intended by the Government that there should be a two-year payment for people unfairly dismissed and are out of work for two years, whereas in practice they get nothing like it?
I understand that it is rare for any successful claimant to get more than a paltry sum. How much are people getting? Is it right that the vast bulk of successful claimants are getting less than £100, let alone £4,000. If so, why? The Act has been in operation since 28th February—five months. We should know by now. I suggest that it is correct and that


the reason is two-fold. First, one has to lay claim in writing within four weeks from the end of one's employment. In the case of redundancy pay, one has six months in which to do it. I do not know why there is this distinction. One is dismissed unfairly and within four weeks one must lay a claim in writing. Generally, however, people make their claims earlier than that.
Secondly, the conciliation officer goes in. He knows, because it is his job, that the tribunals are awarding paltry sums and that there is therefore a substantial chance that one will lose one's case, as most people do. In most cases, I am told, he advises the claimant to accept a paltry sum because that is what he would be awarded by the tribunal. What are the sums which have been awarded by agreement between the parties and with the blessing of the conciliation officer? No blessing of the conciliation officer means no right to contract out.
The Department must know what the conciliation officers are doing. It is not a question of computers. I hope that I shall not be told to wait until the autumn for the computer to arrive. The House is entitled to know now which claims have been settled and the nature of the settlements.
Above all—and this is not a matter for a computer at all—what instructions are given by the Department to those conciliation officers? Suppose an employee is sufficiently stubborn and brave to get by a conciliation officer and to take his case to a tribunal as hundreds have already done. He will get to the tribunal, in time—between six weeks and three months after the end of his employment. What are the figures? How long does it take in practice? What is the period of time which elapses between the moment when he is sacked and leaves his job and when he reaches the tribunal? I understand that it is about six weeks to two months.
Let us say that the employee succeeds and the tribunal is satisfied that he has been unfairly sacked. He is entitled to his loss, to compensation for the loss he has proved. Is it £4,160 or two years pay at £40 a week? What can he say? He has been out of work for only two or three months. The tribunal, in my opinion, should adjourn the case or "stand it over". It should say that the

person must continue to look for other work and that if he does not get it the Act is there to provide him with a cushion—that his loss of job has been caused through the unfair act of the employer but that at that stage the tribunal cannot say what was the full loss but will give an interim award. I take the view that the tribunal is probably entitled to adjourn cases, and I am told that some are adjourned. How many? If the Minister cannot answer, I ask him tell the House whether he also takes the view that the tribunals could and should adjourn cases in the proper circumstances. If he takes the view that they cannot, will he have the law amended to bring in a provision on no airy-fairy principle but on the basic right of an employee so greatly relied on by the Government.
At present, I understand, a man goes to a tribunal, having been unfairly dismissed and having been out of work for a couple of months. He is told by the tribunal, "You have lost two months pay. We estimate that you should get work in two to three months." He receives, not two years pay, as trumpeted by the Government, not up to £4,160 but maybe three or even four months pay, or more likely two months. What are the figures? Is this just a mirage? If so, what are the Government doing about it? Are tribunals receiving instructions, guidance or advice? Have there been consultations with the men or women who give the services? What consultations are taking place between his Department and those administering the tribunal?
What consultations are taking place between firms and advisers to the tribunals? Is it recognised that this Section is working unfairly and requires amending? These are the questions for people who have been unfairly dismissed. A man goes to the tribunal and the tribunal has to assess his loss. It should assess the loss up to date and then say that it will adjourn the matter and later assess the loss further. In practice the tribunal does not do that. It says that it wants finality. Why? It may be because of the heavy burdens placed on the time of the tribunals, for they are overworked.
But much more likely—and I have been told this on occasion—is the view that finality is


necessary for everyone's protection and for the public good because of what is called in negligence actions compensation neurosis, which means that until an employee knows that he can get no more, he will not buckle down to trying to find another job. But at a time when hundreds of thousands of people are unemployed, I regard this as a totally monstrous approach to a dreadful human problem. People cannot get the jobs they want. There is a two-year cushion here and it can be kept supple by an intelligent application of the law.
Is the Department asked to undertake what one might call a market survey of the likelihood of other employment being available to the successful applicant? Is that how the tribunals reach their decisions? Are employees within the Department regularly or every required to give evidence whether a claimant is likely to get work or as to the availability of employment in his life? Is that how the stab in the dark is made? Is that the sort of torch that is shone into this area of darkness? If it is, then it is not good enough, but if it is not then it is impossible to understand how the tribunals can be expected to come to a decision, still less in a fair way, when they have no information to go on.
I sum up some of the questions put briefly and, I trust, fairly. In the Minister's view, where is the burden of proof in these cases? How many cases in fact succeed? How many of them are settled before they get to the tribunals? How many of the cases that are settled for sums of less than £100, how many for less than £500, and how many for less than £1,000? Have any been settled for £1,000 or more? Have any been settled on the basis of the full £4,000 anticipated by the Act?
Where are the statistics? Why must we wait for them for so long? When the Act has been in operation for five months, what is being done about this? What instructions are given to the conciliation officers? How long does it take before cases are heard? Are the tribunals entitled to adjourn to see whether other work is available and if not, why not? How often do they sit? What percentage of cases are adjourned? Is the Department asked by tribunals to give evidence

of the likely availability of work for a claimant?
How real is the figure of £4,000? Is it, as I suspect, a confidence trick? Is it, as I suspect, a figure on paper hidden away in an Act of Parliament and relied on by the Government to justify this legislation, or is it real? Has anybody received it? Can the Minister name one person who has received that sum? If it turns out that this is an unreal figure and that the Act is not working as it ought to work in this respect, will the Minister inform the House accordingly and undertake to have the Act amended?
I am sure that the House would wish the tribunals to be properly paid for and staffed, but when we are voting money for this purpose, the House is entitled to know the manner in which the tribunals are carrying out their work, the circumstances in which they are doing it and what restrictions are placed upon them by the law and the effect of the law as it stands.
We have here a law that is meant to help people greatly in a period of unemployment, but in practice it is unreliable. If people feel that they are unable to rely on the provisions of the Act, the Section requires careful attention. I ask the Minister to answer the questions as I have posed them. I hope that the Minister and the House will regard them as fair questions about an area of the law that concerns hundreds of thousands of people who are or will be dismissed from their jobs in circumstances that have already produced thousands of claims.

6.10 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. R. Chichester-Clark): I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) upon his eloquence at this hour of the morning and on his persistence in staying up till such an hour. I admired his fluency. It was like a machine gun burst. There were so many questions that I fear that it is very unlikely that I shall be able to answer all of them. If I fail so to do, I will, of course, write to the hon. and learned Gentleman and give him any explanation that I possibly can.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has in effect queried whether the operation


of the industrial tribunals compensation arrangements for unfair dismissal claims is working properly and he has asked about the number of people using, in particular, Section 22 of the Act. May I first clear up one basic point which may cause some doubt in the hon. and learned Gentleman's mind and may certainly be a doubt in other minds. All cases of alleged unfair dismissal must go first to one of the conciliation officers of the Department of Employment to attempt a settlement before it goes to the industrial tribunal.
Of the 2,500-odd complaints which have been made in the first four months of the operation of this part of the Act, about 1,900 have been processed, and of these less than half have actually gone before the tribunals. The other 1,000-odd were settled or withdrawn by the conciliation stage. Obviously, this will to some extent colour the outcome of cases which actually reach the tribunals. There are cases where probably either an employer is being stubborn, in which case re-engagement is unlikely, or an employee is perhaps persisting in his claim against advice, and there are undoubtedly cases of that nature. So it is no wonder that there is a high proportion of cases dismissed.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said fairly that I would be bound to say something about the problems of the slowness of the computer. I am speaking in rough figures, and the hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to criticise us for not being able to produce more and better data more quickly. Everybody has his own particular computer story. I had a case today which affected my own life so I am very conscious of these problems. It seems to be an unwritten rule of life that when one gets technological acceleration, things come almost to a grinding halt shortly afterwards.
Unfortunately, the best of computers, as the hon. and learned Gentleman recognises, require a large number of people to get them working. The computer staff of my Department have been very heavily engaged, as he will know, upon other modernisation, in particular lately on such matters as the matching of vacancies with the unemployed register and that sort of thing. When the programme does get under way and we have got sufficient data to attempt worthwhile analyses,

which frankly is not yet the case, we shall have better data more quickly available than would otherwise be the case. In the meantime, the Department's officers are collecting and examining information about proceedings before these tribunals and there is a limited analysis of this information in the July issue of the Department's Gazette. These will continue to appear quarterly until the computer is fully operative.

Mr. Janner: Would the hon. Gentleman say when it is expected that the computer will be, as he puts it, fully operative? How long must we wait?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I do not wish to be held to a date, but I hope it will be in the autumn. It may be somewhat later than that. It is impossible to be absolutely certain at this time. If the hon. and learned Gentleman has not a copy of the Department's Gazette for July I will send him one. He may obtain some of the information that he wants from it.
The hon. and learned Gentleman queried whether Section 22 is benefiting very many people. I suspect that he has read the article, which I read, published in the Sunday Times about 10 days ago. That article spoke of a 30 per cent. satisfied customer rate, and the question is, I suppose, what is a satisfied customer? By implication, that was the question posed by the hon. and learned Gentleman in his speech.

Mr. Janner: It is not a question of being a satisfied customer. In his excellent and helpful article, Mr. Vincent Hanna said that only about 30 per cent. of claimants succeed in getting any compensation. One does not become a satisfied customer if one receives £50 and should have received £4,000. Apparently, only 30 per cent. get anything. How many succeed in getting any money, and how much do they receive?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, and I was about to discuss what a satisfied customer is. It may be that he is satisfied only to the extent that, at least, he has had his complaint heard

Mr. Janner: Oh, really!

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Some people would rather have that than nothing at


all. Obviously, in this kind of situation, not every case can be won, and nor can that be expected.
About 20 per cent. of cases so far completed, whether by conciliation or following a tribunal hearing, have resulted in either re-engagement or compensation. Rather over 20 per cent. of cases reaching tribunals so far have ended with recommendations for re-engagement or compensation. In the other cases, I am afraid it is simply a matter of the aggrieved person discussing his grievance with someone. He has had his case examined by a tribunal, and, whatever the outcome—I realise that this is not a satisfactory answer for the hon. and learned Gentleman, but we must face the fact that this is what does occur—he has had opportunity to air his complaint.
No one should conclude, or could possibly conclude, that because more than, say, 50 per cent. of cases go against the complainant the system is working inequitably. Inevitably, in the early stages, there will be a settling-down period, and there will be somewhat dubious—

Mr. Janner: Mr. Janner rose—

Mr. Chichester-Clark: In view of the time, I ought not to give way too much. Inevitably, people will bring forward in this sort of test period rather more dubious cases than they will later, simply because the Act is there. As to what is fair and unfair, as this becomes a little more widely realised, we may then, I suppose, expect some reduction—I do not mean to be offensive, but I use the term for want of other words—in the "try-on" cases. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that conciliation officers have been acting harshly in cases before they go to tribunals—[Interruption.] Perhaps it was the burden of his argument. It is not a justified suggestion. In fairness to all concerned, they must, in dealing with either the complainant or the other party to the dispute, act to a certain extent as devil's advocate, but there is certainly no question of pressurising.
The hon. and learned Gentleman turned next to the question of the time taken over complaints, suggesting that the whole process of making a complaint takes a good deal too long. A complaint, as he

knows, has to be made within four weeks of the effective date of dismissal. Obviously, the conciliation officer has then to examine the case, quite rightly, to see whether a voluntary settlement is possible. But this goes on simultaneously with the setting up of the tribunal hearing, the arranging of a meeting, the distributing of papers, and so on. The whole complaint may be dealt with in a matter of five weeks. We should like to see that improved in some ways, though this is not necessarily what the hon. and learned Gentleman is arguing for, but I do not think that it is too bad in comparison with cases in the courts of common law.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the levels of compensation. He was suggesting that they were not very generous. I think that he had at the back of his mind a comparison with redundancy payments. The system by which industrial tribunals assess compensation in cases of unfair dismissal under the Act is based on the same principle as applies to the assessment of damages under common law. It is fair to say that the value of these principles has been proved by fairly long experience, and at the moment we consider them preferable to the alternative of fixed scales.
In the past hon. Gentlemen opposite favoured fixed-scale compensation based on such factors as length of service and age, but it was felt that that would be bound to operate inequitably as between employees in that it would not take account of their differing prospects of obtaining further employment, and this is important. The Donovan Commission was not in favour of fixed-scale compensation, and I do not see any reason to doubt that it was right in that.
The maximum amount of compensation that a tribunal can award is, under Section 118, 104 weeks' pay or £4,160, whichever is the less. That is a substantial amount, and it is in line with what the Donovan Commission recommended. It far exceeds the maximum compensation awardable under the legislation which the previous Administration produced. That was only £2,640 where an employee with more than 20 years' service and earning £40 a week was grossly unfairly dismissed and an employer refused to comply with an order for reinstatement.
It is also much better than the maximum of £2,100 which is payable under the Redundancy Payments Act. It is true—and this may make the hon. and learned Gentleman a little happier—that my right hon. Friend has powers under the Act to increase the compensation limit, and I can say now that my right hon. Friend would not hesitate to use the power if experience—and we need experience—of the operation of the Act showed the need for that to be done.
As regards the levels of compensation, as far as I know—and the hon. and learned Gentleman was right in suspecting this—no one has been awarded the full amount. To have that happen would require exceptional circumstances but it is true—and the Sunday Times was a little off beat here—that tribunals have awarded up to £3,000 on several occasions. In the majority of cases actual losses are small, and compensation is awarded primarily on account of loss of security. The majority of compensation awards by industrial tribunals so far have been up to about £500, and this compares with average redundancy payments in 1971 of £292.
I know that at the back of the hon. and learned Gentleman's mind is an anxiety to ensure that unfairly dismissed employees receive proper compensation related to the actual experiences they have been through. I think that that is a fair way of interpreting what he is getting at. With that in mind, he is suggesting that in cases where the complainant continues to be unemployed tribunals ought to make interim awards and to adjourn cases to allow for the later consideration of further compensation based on the length of time they were actually unemployed.
The trouble is that procedure would inevitably add enormously to the tribunals' case load, and that is a problem which is of consideratble concern, or might be. It is too early to say that it is. If that procedure were adopted, one or more hearings might be required before the final award of compensation was determined and that, too, could present further problems. There could be cases which dragged on almost interminably, possibly to nobody's advantage.

Mr. Janner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Act contemplates that a person would be able to return for a period of up to two years to obtain the maximum, and that I do not quibble about the maximum being £4,160? What is worrying me is that the maximum is never reached, and that people receive vastly less because they cannot show their loss. I am not complaining that cases come slowly to the tribunals but that they come so quickly that the tribunals cannot fairly assess the losses. That is the problem the hon. Gentleman has not dealt with at all.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's point of view. It is simply a different point of view in many ways from that held at present in my Department. But I have told him that although it is true that the maximum award under the Act has not been made, as far as I can tell, there have been awards of up to £3,000.

Mr. Janner: How many?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: That I cannot tell the hon. and learned Gentleman now, but I will make sure that he knows as soon as it is possible to give that figure.
We must also be absolutely certain, however kindly a view we take of human nature, that such adjournments as the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes would not, with the prospect of further compensation, act almost as a disincentive to individual complainants' trying to mitigate their losses.
Section 116 provides that the tribunals must assess compensation according to what is just and equitable in the circumstances. The tribunals must take into account the total losses sustained by the employee as a result of his unfair dismissal. These include both reasonable expenses already incurred and loss of expectations. Therefore, the tribunals must in practice take into consideration not only unemployment already experienced but factors such as future employment prospects elsewhere.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether the tribunal had to be aware, through the Department, of the employment position in the area, of the complainant's future employment possibilities.
That is in general terms true, but not I think related at present to specific vacancies. Other factors must be taken into account—loss of accommodation which went with the job; loss of reputation or status; loss of pension rights; loss of security, as for example arises from the loss of eligibility to claim a redundancy payment or complain of unfair dismissal for two years after taking up a new job; and any reduction in future income as a result of having had to take a lower-paid job. But it is true, as in common law suits, that the dismissed employee has the responsibility to mitigate his loss—for example, by trying to find appropriate employment—and compensation is reduced where the employee is found by the tribunal to have provoked or contributed to his dismissal, or where he unreasonably refuses re-engagement or otherwise makes no efforts to help himself.
So far we believe that the tribunals have taken full account of the complainant's employment prospects. The hon. and learned Gentleman can feel reassured about that. They have awarded generous compensation in respect of possible future unemployment where the case warranted—for example, where an employee approaching retirement age was dismissed and his chances of finding further employment were considered to be remote.
I think that I have answered the hon. and learned Gentleman's question about the Department's giving evidence on work availability.
There is no conclusive evidence of tribunals shifting the burden of proof back on to the employee. The Act states that the employer must show the reason for dismissal. Then there is the fact-finding process. The claimant then has to put his own version to establish whether his reason is correct, the tribunal having first decided whether the employer's reason was fair. On the question of legal aid, this has been the subject of a review on occasions and it was decided not to apply it to tribunals. Legal proceedings at the tribunals are in general kept informal and it is comparatively rare that barristers or solicitors are employed, although I bow to the hon. and learned Gentleman's experience.
If this is shown to be acting against the claimant's interests it could be re-considered. I could not say that it would be considered with enormous favour. One of the problems, and it is only one, which would stand in the way of this would be the whole question of caseload. It is too early to assess the work that will fall on these tribunals. We have only had four months of their operation and we are not yet up to full strength with them. There is the question of allowing appeals from those who have had less than the two years which is required under the Act. There are many instances of those who have had less than two years wanting to use the tribunal procedure. It is likely, if there were any alterations, that they would have preference over what the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, even if his suggestions found favour in other respects.
It would be of great help if he were able to say to his trade union friends that nothing would give greater pleasure than that they should come forward and work with these tribunals, adding their valuable experience to this work and helping to increase the number of people available and thus reducing—and this may be necessary—the caseload falling upon the tribunals.
I realise that I cannot have answered all the points fired at me rather rapidly by the hon. and learned Gentleman. If I have failed to do so, I shall be happy to write to him.

COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS

6.33 a.m.

Mr. David Steel: I am pleased to have this opportunity, even at this extraordinary hour of the day, to raise the important question of the administration of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, particularly as it applies to United Kingdom citizens of Asian origin, mainly from East Africa, usually known, somewhat inaccurately as Kenya Asians. At the outset I should say that I remain as opposed to the provisions of the 1968 Act, confirmed in recent legislation, as I was at the time it was passed and as was a large majority of hon. Members in all parts of the House.
I still maintain that the terms of the legislation were pernicious. I agree with the late lain Macleod who argued that when we granted citizenship to those persons at the time of granting independence to Kenya it was a deliberate act of the British Government. Even if one does not accept his argument the fact is that it happened. Whether or not it was right is a matter widely debated inside and outside the House. It happened and the fact is that we have an inescapable responsibility in international law and morality to that section of the population which was granted our citizenship, even though they did not originate in these islands.
I am reinforced in that view by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provides that
Everyone has the right … to return to his country";
by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country";
and by protocol No. 4 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, which we have signed, which provides that
No one shall be deprived of the right to enter the teritory of the State of which he is a national".
Therefore, I hope we shall not hear from the Minister the old argument that this legislation was necessary because we must be spared an influx of too many people at any given moment. I accept the validity of that argument on administrative grounds, but we must remember throughout that we have an overriding responsibility to these people.
Because this is a pernicious piece of legislation, and because the demand for entry to this country by those citizens is greater than the number of vouchers which we are able to grant in any year, it is an extremely difficult piece of legislation to administer. Therefore, I genuinely have considerable sympathy not simply for the Minister who has overall responsibility for this matter but for those in the Home Office and in posts overseas faced with the practical and individual problems to which this legislation has naturally given rise. It is only fair that I should say that on the occasions when I have had to raise individual cases with the Home Office it has usually been extremely generous and

swift in dealing with them and often very sympathetic.
But it is only a very small minority of United Kingdom citizens who have access to or the ear of a sympathetic Member of Parliament, and it is those who never have the opportunity to make contact with a Member of Parliament whose cases go by default and who send me, and I am sure other hon. Members, pathetic letters from the countries in which they are staying.
I hope therefore that the Government will welcome, as I do, this opportunity to review how the legislation has been working in practice in recent times and what has been happening, particularly since the last occasion on which we discussed this matter when the voucher level was increased under the present Administration.
I asked a number of Written Questions about this subject recently but, because there were no newspapers and because we are still lacking HANSARD for some days, very few of them have seen the light of day. However, they produced some interesting information. For example, the number of vouchers issued has been declining quarter by quarter over the last 18 months or so. I shall be grateful if the Under-Secretary of State will comment on that.
The second interesting reply which I received contained a table outlining the number of United Kingdom citizens waiting in different countries for entry to this country. Governments like those of Kenya and Uganda share with us a general responsibility for these people. By and large they have lived in those countries for many years. They have contributed to the economies of those countries, and it is right that their Governments should be reasonable in their attitude towards those who are not their citizens but who have earned a livelihood in their countries.
I do not think that the same general responsibility extends to other countries. The largest single number of United Kingdom citizens outside the countries in which they had their upbringing and earned their livelihood exists in India. That is partly because of the arrangement made at the time between the British Government and the Indian Government and partly because some of them at least had before gone to India.
and many of them went there rather than wait in a penniless situation in East Africa. In recent months pressure has been growing for them to leave India and to go to the country of which they are citizens—namely, this country—and the difficulty has arisen that there has grown in India a greater demand for vouchers than the number we normally allocate there. Again, I think it must be said that the Government of India have no general responsibility to accept in their country indefinitely a large number of our citizens. It seems to me, therefore, that if people who are our citizens abroad find themselves without jobs or means of support and then attempt to come to this country, that is perfectly natural and understandable.
However, in recent months a growing number of those people have popped up in different parts of the world, particularly in Italy and France. In a Question last week I inquired whether it was possible for United Kingdom citizens to apply for entry certificates in some country other than the country in which they originated—in other words, France or Italy. The answer I got was "Yes". If this is the case I cannot quite understand why so many of these individuals who were in France and Italy found they had to return to India before they could be considered for an entry certificate here. I shall be grateful if the Minister can clear up this point.
It seems to me that these people have no greater right of residence in India than they have in France or Italy. They are very often in a state of extreme poverty; they have no right to work in those countries and they are dependent upon charity, both that given there and that which is sent from this country. Altogether it is surely an unsatisfactory situation which, as I said at the start, originates from the nature of the legislation itself. What has happened even more recently and what I particularly deplore is that in the case of some people who have come to this country without an entry certificate the Government have attempted to shuffle them back to somewhere else. Precisely where is never very clear.
There was the case, which because the Press was not printing, did not receive as much publicity as normally it would

have done, of the six United Kingdom citizens who were dispatched twice to India—or, indeed, it may have been three times; I lost track of them after a certain time. However, they came back on the first occasion. There appears to have been no consultation with the Indian Government. This was another Question I asked last week. I was told that the Indian Government were informed that they were being sent to India, but that is not the same thing as securing the agreement of the Indian Government that they would be received. As I have already indicated, the Indian Government do not have any particular responsibility for receiving people who are our citizens. The six, having gone once to India and come back again, were bundled into a Qantas aircraft at Heathrow. I am told that one of the girls in the group was in a state of considerable distress and that the pilot of the aircraft refused to carry them. I commend his action entirely. Despite that, they were then put into another aircraft and were sent to India again, and were returned again. As I say, I am not quite clear whether they were sent out a third time.
There was the other case, reported yesterday in one newspaper, of two United Kingdom citizens from Uganda who have been on a complete round-the-world flight, apparently stopping at various destinations and being refused entry and coming back to this country.
This action by the British Government is indefensible. Whenever there is a case of animals, whether they be squirrels, monkeys or whatever, arriving at a British airport in bad condition there is an immediate banner headline and, quite rightly, a public outcry. There should be a similar public outcry about uncivilised treatment of human beings who are expected to endure endless air journeys. And at whose expense are these flights—are they at the airline's or at the taxpayer's expense? Certainly the effect on the unfortunate travellers is disastrous.
It may be that the Government find it necessary to stop queue jumping and to have the deterrent of detention, but there should be no attempt by the Government to turn away from our shores people for whom at the end of the day we have sole responsibility. That is the aspect of the situation about which I


am most unhappy and which I believe deserves greater scrutiny by the House.

6.45 a.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) on making such a powerful case on the grounds of humanity, a case in which he spelt out the essential facts. I shall not enlarge to a great extent on the facts he outlined and on his indictment of the Government, but I wish to make plain at the outset that neither the hon. Gentleman nor I seeks to make party political points on this topic. Conduct of this kind by any Government would be repellent to ordinary standards of decent and civilised behaviour. That it is being practised by our Government is a direct consequence of legislation which the present Government and their Labour predecessors sought to invoke to deal with these matters.
The hon. Gentleman said that in the final analysis responsibility for dealing with the plight of these people resides with our Government. We know that the Government have tried to shuffle off their responsibilities on to the shoulders of the Indian Government. That is a sad reflection on the Government's attitude because the Indian Government have not the same measure of responsibility as we have. The Indian Government are faced with difficulties which make our own economic problems pale into insignificance and they have shown a far greater measure of responsibility towards these people than we have done.
If the Government say that the fault lies in East Africa, perhaps it does, but we have a problem with which we must deal here and now. These people are either United Kingdom passport holders or they are British protected persons. When the Government also say, as they have done to explain their appalling attitude, that we have to accept that when people jump the queue and are given preference this will be intolerable to those who are ahead of them in the queue, the answer surely is that the number of United Kingdom passport holders who are permitted entry here is wholly inadequate and that the numbers should be substantially 
increased for heads of families.
That does not in any way deal with the British protected persons. They cannot even enter the queue. Surely we have a responsibility towards them. The number of people who have applied for entry vouchers is quite considerable. But they have had to go through the most inordinate delays. Some applied four years ago, some three years ago and some two years ago. The delays are quite intolerable. People who are deprived of any financial support in India, for example, people who are living in total poverty, cannot await the Government's decisions for that period of time.
The Government are tied by their own regulations. They increased the allocation of 500 vouchers earlier this year, but that is still woefully inadequate when one realises that the problem is extremely serious and that it has been growing because of the pressure of rules, regulations and legislation in East Africa which has made the plight of these people very much worse in recent months.
I turn now to another feature of the hon. Gentleman's case concerning the way in which these people are shuttled around. There are today about 21 of these people in Boulogne. They are living there as a result of the charity of citizens of that town. Their upkeep costs £35 a month per person. They are totally dependent on the good will of people living in Boulogne, and probably a very small number of people at that. At present they are being housed in a school. They have been told by the British Consul in Lille that they must return to India. There is no question of whether they want to return to India or whether the Indian Government are prepared to have them; they must return to India. The British Consul said that their applications would be favourably received by that country. On 28th July he delivered forms to these people.
The intolerable position concerning this matter is that those people cannot honestly, complying with the law, complete those forms, because they are required to complete questions about the purpose of their visit and to give undertakings about their length of stay. If they are honest in completing those forms, it is quite clear that the Indian Government would not be obliged to take them.
There are 56 of these people in Turin. There are at present a large number of these people in Pentonville prison. These are not people who have committed offences. They are decent people who have got completely fed up with the poverty with which they have been faced and they have had to take drastic action. They are United Kingdom passport holders and British protected persons.
Let us consider for a moment the situation of those people who are kept in Pentonville prison. I doubt whether any of them have suffered the indignity and shame of being in prison before. It is not a pleasant place to be in, even as a civil debtor. It is a gruesome, repellent building. When its great doors are shut behind someone, it must be a fearful experience.
These people are required to undergo the regime of the prison. I do not suppose they are required to wear the uniform, the denims or the dungarees that other prisoners wear. I know not. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us about that. But that these people have to suffer this shame and the infinite boredom and the fact that they are incarcerated in this place for very long periods, most of them without visitors, is also a blot upon this country.
Eight people have been held in detention since 25th May, nine since 29th May, 24 since 3rd June, eight since 22nd June, five since 24th June, and so it goes on.
As the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles said, this is not the end of the story. Some of these people are required to fly in aeroplanes for intolerable periods. We know this has an appalling effect on people from a medical point of view. Those of us who have undergone flights of about 21 hours know how exhausted we are at the end of that time. However, the periods of flying to which these people have been subjected is infinitely worse than that.
I cannot help likening the position to that which arose before the war. I am Jewish. A number of my relatives who were in Europe died in concentration camps. In those days a large number of people applied to be admitted to the United Kingdom, the United States and elsewhere but Governments adduced all

kinds of reasons which, on the face of them, appeared to be sound and logical, though perhaps not very compassionate, for refusing admittance. Although this country and the United States took a large number of Jewish people, more could have come to both countries. More could have been admitted to other Commonwealth countries and, indeed, to other countries which are regarded as democracies in the world. But they were not admitted. As a result they died or were savagely tortured.
I am not suggesting that the position is totally analogous. There is not the direct physical persecution in the same way, but there is a form of persecution here. There is a form of intolerance, of relying upon rules and regulations and of ignoring the common humanity of the position. Nobody wants these people. Because nobody wants them, they are totally rejected and subjected to a form of persecution.
The Government must be concerned about the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. This sort of case has already been regarded as admissible by the court. Therefore, it is a matter for argument, regarding these people's rights, whether the Government in their legislation, and operation of the legislation, are in breach of that convention. However, notwithstanding the fact that the matter is arguably sub judice, the Government persist in their policies regardless of what the decision of the court may or may not be. I should have thought that was in itself an offensive attitude for the United Kingdom Government to take.
I support the view which has been put forward that whatever pressure can be brought to bear on the Government, such as influencing the pilots of the International Airline Pilots Association to follow the example of the Qantas pilot to whom reference was made in the speech of the hon. Gentleman, is something which all Members of Parliament and others should try to exert. No doubt it will be said that we are seeking to break the law and that we are urging other people to do so. I suggest, if the Under-Secretary of State puts forward that argument, which I hope he does not, that that is a lot of nonsense. It is the Government that are breaking the accepted mores of civilised behaviour. If


such action were to constitute a breach of the law, it is one of those absolutes which we do not have to obey which we debated the other day. It is a good example of where one does not have to comply with the absolute law as distinct from the rule of law.
I urge the Government to increase the number of vouchers. We cannot ask that the Government immediately increase them by 25,000, but this is a growing problem and they must do something about it. I hope we will not hear from the Under-Secretary of State a lot of statements about the difficulties for the Government, how they must recognise that other Governments have responsibilities and other matters which we have heard so many times before. The ultimate responsibility resides with the Government.
I should have referred earlier in my speech to the case of the two young ladies, Miss Vasanti Paleja and Miss Shankuntala Paleja, which reflects the misery of the position. Miss Vasanti Paleja is 29 years of age and the other young lady is 22 years of age. They are both British passport holders who were horn in Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania, on 26th October, 1942, and 27th November, 1949, respectively. Their mother is in Tanzania. Their father was last heard of in Bombay. They have a brother but they do not know where he is. He is supposed to be arriving in the United Kingdom.
Shankuntala left Tanzania in 1967. In 1971 she attended a six months' course in clinical pathology in Bombay. When she completed her studies she was unable to provide financial guarantees and was required to quit India on 2nd June. She was required to quit within seven days. She tried to get an extension of her visa but that was refused. She left India with her sister on 10th June, 1972.
The two young ladies travelled by air to Genoa from Bombay. They were unable to get a ticket to London. They took a train via Paris to Boulogne and and a ferry to Folkestone, arriving there on 13th July. They did not have a visa to enter the country. They were stopped at Folkestone by immigration officials and taken to Dover, where they were kept overnight. On 14th July they were taken to a detention centre and were told they were being detained because they did

not have a visa. They were told that they would be brought to Holloway prison, but happily that did not take place.
On 19th July they saw immigration officials who produced quota voucher forms to them and an application for a visa to India. They refused to sign the forms. They have no relatives in India, they cannot work there and they cannot support themselves there. They were told that if they did not sign the forms they would be sent to prison. They were told that the Home Office was trying to co-operate with them and that they should co-operate with the Home Office.
I have said that they were, happily, not sent to prison. But after 19th July they were sent to Holloway. I believe that my own firm of solicitors is dealing with one or other of the cases and therefore I declare my interest in the matter if that is the situation. But I am a little vague about it because the gentleman who deals with these matters is out of London and I have not been able to check overnight. It seems to me that this is the sort of case which best illustrates how the Home Office has viewed these matters by looking at the letter of its own regulations—I will not describe it as law—instead of applying common humanity and compassion. That is what is needed and I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give a promise that the Government will not simply look into this matter but will deal effectively with the position forthwith, so that when we rise for the recess we may be able to have some feeling that the Government are concerned and are taking direct action to deal with what is a blot upon this country.

7.7 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): This situation is distressing and distasteful to everyone concerned with it. Of course it is distressing to the individuals involved, who as we know are United Kingdom passport holders in a special position within the entirety of would-be Commonwealth immigrants and to whom I acknowledge at once, this country has a special responsibility; but it is also distressing—and I am grateful for the acknowledgment of this by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) and the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis)—to the Home Office officials who have to


deal with it, to myself and to other Ministers. I welcome this debate. It is good that even at this curious hour we should look at the situation, and I am grateful for the moderate terms used by the hon. Members.
The Government's aim is to operate the immigration control in a way that is firm but fair. It is a very difficult balance to strike, particularly in this context. All I can say is that we shall continue to do our best to get the right balance. I want to sketch a little of the background to the present difficulties. First, in looking towards our goal of one nation, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was discussing once again last week, plainly a major element is good race relations in Britain, and we have always mentioned that in talking about this subject at and since the General Election.
Equally plainly, a prerequisite of good race relations in Britain is control of immigration which is tight and is seen to be tight. In this, as the Minister who carries particular responsibility for immigration, I should like to pay tribute to the Home Office officials who have to deal with it. They have a thankless task, accused one day of being too lax and the next of being too harsh. Coming comparatively new to the problem, I am much impressed by the thoroughness with which they work and the humanity with which they try to deal with these difficult cases.
To turn to the United Kingdom passport holders, their place in the whole United Kingdom immigration scheme and how we got to this position as a result of the 1968 Act, may I remind the House of the course of events by which we got to this position in the summer of 1972. When the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, came into operation there were in East Africa a considerable number of people whose origins were in the Indian subcontinent but who had obtained citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies, either by registration or birth in a British dependency. Like other Commonwealth citizens, these people became subject to control on entry to the United Kingdom in 1962.
When the East African States subsequently gained their independence, they

automatically acquired citizenship of the newly-independent territories if they themselves and one parent had been born in Africa. The others retained citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies unless they elected to take local citizenship. They then obtained United Kingdom passports from the British High Commissions in the newly-independent countries and in this way they became exempt from the then existing control on entry into the United Kingdom.
Before 1967 the number of holders of United Kingdom passports coming for settlement was not significant, but in that year and in the early part of 1968 the number of immigrants from that source increased and the then Labour Government introduced the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1968, extending control to all United Kingdom passport holders having no close personal or ancestral connection with the United Kingdom, so that entry could be at a controlled rate.
I do not wish to go again into the controversy of that time but merely to state the facts which we have to deal with at present. United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa were then able to come here in ways open to Commonwealth citizens generally, for example by means of employment vouchers. In addition an allocation of 1,500 special vouchers a year was made available for issue to heads of households wishing to settle here. This made up an annual rate of admission, including dependants, of about 6,000 a year or about the number arriving in the years before 1967.
Owing to the difficulties in which they found themselves in East Africa because of Africanisation, applicants for special vouchers soon exceeded the numbers of vouchers available, and after a review my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary, towards the end of May last year, announced that the Government had decided first to double the rate of entry by the issue of 3,000 instead of 1,500 vouchers a year, providing for an annual entry of 12,000, including dependants, and secondly to make available over a period of six months a further 1,500 vouchers for those in special need in order to relieve pressure on the queue. At the same time the number of employment vouchers for issue to Commonwealth citizens was cut


from 8,500 to 2,700 a year to compensate for the increase in arrivals from East Africa.
There has since been a marked improvement in the situation in East Africa, although the rate of applications for vouchers has increased since the allocation was doubled and there is a long waiting list at present. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, before dealing with the present Indian difficulties, asked how this had been going for East Africa. I think that these arrangements have worked well and on the whole smoothly although of course, as we all know, there are still many people waiting to come here.
I am puzzled by what the hon. Member said about the numbers. It is my recollection—I do not have the precise figures with me—that the numbers coming with special vouchers from East Africa month by month in 1972 have been greater than the corresponding figures of last year as a result of the increase that we made 12 months ago.

Mr. David Steel: I am not disputing that. The point I was making was that the total figure, not just from East Africa but of all United Kingdom citizens, had been dropping month by month. That information was given to me in a Written Answer that has not yet appeared in HANSARD and I could not find in my office the one copy that I had. I asked for the total number of United Kingdom citizens coming into the country.

Mr. Lane: I should like to study the figures further but I am clear that the figures for East Africa, where there has been the main pressure over the last few years, reflect the increase that we made a year ago. However, I should like to look into that.
Some United Kingdom passport holders went from East Africa to India. Some went under the terms of an agreement that we have with the Indian Government whereby, if those people wished, they could later apply for entry certificates to come from India to the United Kingdom, and those entry certificates would be issued without delay. These were people with a good case for the issue of a special voucher in East Africa and they are not among those with whom we are mainly concerned this morning.
Other people at sometime after their arrival in India applied to come here under the special voucher arrangement. In India they are not in the main experiencing the same difficulties as are faced by United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa, and we have thought it right for the great bulk of the special vouchers to be issued to United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa.
However, as the House will remember, in November last year United Kingdom passport holders began to travel from India to the United Kingdom for settlement without vouchers. Some applicants in India had waited several years for their vouchers and the Home Secretary announced in a Written Answer on 3rd May this year that, after reviewing the position of United Kingdom passport holders in India, the Government had decided to make an immediate issue of special vouchers to them for settlement in this country. This answers the point made by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central for I stress that the issue was to be decided according to priorities settled from time to time by our High Commissioner in New Delhi, taking into account the local situation and individual circumstances as far as possible.

Mr. Steel: The hon. Gentleman has made a point that is new to me, and it is interesting. He appeared to draw a distinction between two different categories of United Kingdom citizens in India—those who went to India under a special agreement between the two Governments and those who simply went there outside the special agreement and are there just as though they had remained in East Africa. It is a new and interesting distinction. I do not expect the lion. Gentle. man to produce the figures now but it would be interesting to have a breakdown of the numbers coming to this country from India from among those who went there under the special agreement and those who went there outside it.

Mr. Lane: If I can get an accurate breakdown of the figures I will send it to the hon. Member. In this situation they have all been waiting for special vouchers for varying times.
I was saying that with effect from 3rd May this year the total allocation of special vouchers to United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa and India


was increased from 3,000 to 3,500. But at the same time there was a further reduction of 450 a year in the number of employment vouchers issued for Commonwealth immigrants generally—that is, down to 2,250.
Coming back to the situation in India, as soon as this announcement was made our High Commissioner in India sent letters to all the applicants on the waiting list telling them that vouchers were now to be issued and warning them that anyone who arrived in the United Kingdom for settlement without a voucher must expect to be refused entry here. Airlines operating from India to or towards the United Kingdom have been informed that helping United Kingdom passport holders without proper documents to come here for settlement is both unsettling and unfair to those waiting their turn in India and causes hardship to the passengers themselves who arc liable to be refused admission on arrival here and to be detained pending arrangements for their removal.
As we all know, despite these warnings a few United Kingdom passport holders have continued to come here from India without the vouchers necessary for their settlement. We cannot allow them simply to jump the queue in this way. We have to operate a new system, unsatisfactory though it is in many respects. We also owe a duty to residents of this country, including those immigrants who have come here in the proper way, to ensure that the total rate of arrivals is not greater than the community can absorb. Distasteful though it is, therefore, we shall have to continue to do all we can to ensure that people without the proper documents are not admitted for settlement.
I have deliberately gone over the background at some length because I wanted to remind the House of the great trouble taken over the last few years by British Governments to deal as generously as possible with the problem of United Kingdom passport holders, both in East Africa and in India, who wanted to come to this country, whilst still keeping the total arrivals of immigrants from the Commonwealth as a whole at a level substantially below the level of the middle and late 1960s.
I want for a few moments more to discuss the central and the immediate difficulties with which hon. Members and I are greatly concerned.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Does the hon. Gentleman seek to say that the problems of the absorption of these people are in any real sense comparable to the problems of absorption facing previous Government—say, in 1962? Are not most of them in fact qualified professional people who are much more readily absorbable within our society than many others?

Mr. Lane: I do not contest that at all. There is a lot in what the hon. Gentleman has said. I remind him, however, that we doubled the figure only 12 months ago, and it is out of the question at the present time to seek to enlarge that any further. I would rather leave the matter there for the moment.
Considering the individuals about whom we are concerned my latest information is that something like 80 are detained in this country today in various places and for various periods of time. Unhappily, because of the temporary increase in the number, the places of detention have to include Pentonville. All these people, I believe, knew when they left India about the new arrangements for the 500 special vouchers that I have been describing, which were intended to make possible the orderly movement of United Kingdom passport holders from India to this country. All of them nevertheless sought—one must say it plainly—to jump the queue. As far as I know, they never applied for vouchers before starting, and it is fair to say that these are not necessarily by any means the worst cases of hardship in India.
To admit these people on arrival is out of the question. It is wholly unfair to those who are waiting their turn in India. If people come here from anywhere without vouchers and the proper permission they must expect to be challenged when they arrive and to be sent back. We have been obliged in most cases to refuse admission under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, if no proper entry documents were brought by those seeking to come here. We have also unhappily had to exercise our power


to detain people pending further examination or the giving of directions for their removal. As the House knows, these directions have to be given within two months of the date when they first arrive in this country.
I assure the House, all the same, that we have been doing our utmost to resolve this difficulty in a fair and humane way. Every single case has been looked at and will continue to be looked at individually. It is bound to be a slow process. Considerable inquiries have had to be made, in some cases linking up with other possible immigrants in the same family. There have been constant consultations with our High Commission in India and, of course, we have had to keep the Indian Government informed about the developing situation.
The stage we have reached at this moment is that a few of these people who have come without vouchers have been admitted. These were cases in which, although they arrive without the documents, when we looked into the matter there were features, we thought, which justified admitting them exceptionally, for a period of three months anyway.
But for the majority who have come without documents in these last few weeks the right course is that they should return to India and await the issue of vouchers there. Some of them we have sent back to India in the last few weeks. In every case we have undertaken that applications would be lodged for them in India immediately they get there. We have had no reason to think that they would not be willing to land in India or that the Indian authorities would not be willing to admit them. In fact, a few have re-entered India in this way in the last few weeks. Nevertheless, as is well known, a handful—I stress only a handful—have apparently refused to land in India, could not be compelled to do so under Indian law and are now back in this country.
That is the general position regarding those whom we have sought to return to India from the United Kingdom.

Mr. David Steel: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the handful. If that happens on one occasion, presumably it is then known to his Department that

they are not willing to enter India and they cannot be compelled to enter. Why, therefore, should they be sent back again?

Mr. Lane: There have been one or two cases in which we have tried a second time to return them because we felt that there should be a further chance at that end to have the matter regularised. We wanted to be sure that there was no misunderstanding, as this is an area in which there can be misunderstandings. That was the reason.
Both hon. Members referred to those who are waiting in France and Italy. There are a certain number in Boulogne and Turin and for them, I repeat, the right course is that they should return to India and await the issue of vouchers there, or wait where they are on the Continent—though, as regards the latter course, I agree that there are the difficulties mentioned by, in particular, the hon. Member for Hackney, Central.
In view of what hon. Members have said, I want to look further in particular into the situation of those on the Continent. I assure the hon. Member for Hackney, Central that I shall look further into the case he mentioned of the two sisters who finally came here in, I think, the middle of June. I cannot give any commitment about what we shall do but I shall look personally into it yet again.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I am grateful for that, because I know from past experience that, when the hon. Gentleman gives an assurance of that kind, he most certainly does look into these matters with care, and he is always scrupulous to keep in touch with hon. Members who refer matters to him. But I want to return to a matter to which he has not yet referred, namely, the position and status of British protected persons, who are not eligible to join the queue.

Mr. Lane: I take it that the hon. Gentleman means British protected persons in India. I shall double check and write to the hon. Gentleman, but I understand that they are entitled to apply for special vouchers, as others are.
To sum up, this is an exceedingly unhappy episode. I believe that the criticisms of what the Government have been trying to do have not been wholly fair. All I will say in conclusion is that we


must, in fairness to those who are observing the rules, continue to resist queue jumping. We shall continue to look at the particular circumstances of each individual case and to administer the whole law governing the entry of United Kingdom passport holders strictly but, I hope, reasonably, and we shall certainly keep in mind the points that have been made in the debate, particularly the points about humanity.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS AND HISTORIC BUILDINGS

7.30 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Though I shall have some sharp things to say about the Government's plans for the future of Nature Conservancy and some less than gentle things to say about the financial attitude to the preservation of churches, I make no general complaint on the first two subjects—archaeology and ancient monuments. The truth is that the Minister has the good fortune to be served by extremely distinguished and scholarly people in the Ancient Monuments Inspectorate. Britain can be proud of this organisation.
If I put terse questions, it is to save time rather than make any kind of blanket complaint. The inspectorate has not only impressed the external world, but has internally impressed people here, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) who at one time was the Minister responsible.
If I speak shortly, it is because I have given the Department ample and detailed warning of some rather recondite questions which I should like to raise and we have gone through a great deal of the ground, perhaps marginally within the order of business on the Field Monuments Bill.
First, Durrington Walls, and I quote from a letter of 12th July:
I can only express my chagrin that Paul Channon and the Department were misled into thinking—and he and they genuinely thought this—that the terms of the preservation order would be observed.
It is no good crying over spilled milk. What I want to know is what steps are being taken to prevent such a situation recurring.
Secondly, on Sutton Hoo, a letter of 12th July says:
We were waiting on the British Museum and they may be waiting on Dr. St. Joseph's aerial survey.
I should like to know what has happened about Sutton Hoo, granted a new owner.
Thirdly, I warned the Department that I would ask for some kind of account of what was happening in our own backyard, if I may call New Palace Yard such. There was an undertaking that there would be a constant archaeological watch and we should like to know what has happened. How about interim reports to be put in the Library?
Fourthly, there is the issue of the Roman Basilica and Leadenhall Market site which is of particular importance, and with it the question whether the Department is satisfied that the City is paying sufficient attention to its own unique archaeology. I appreciate that space is short in the city and that people say that they have to earn their living and archaeology is costly but, with a little forethought, buildings can be put on stilts or there can be some exploration given time and records can be kept.
Here I again mention a subject of which I have given the Department warning, the imaginative scheme of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) who is concerned with what is to happen to the nine miles along the Thames to the east of Blackfriars. I ask in this context what archaeological survey will be made during redevelopment.
Sixth, I am interested in marine archaeology and the discussions with Mr. Van der Heide, the distinguished nautical archaeologist, and the Dutch Government about the future of the "Amsterdam" and "Hollandia". Can we perhaps preserve the Dutch wreck off Hastings in the same way as the Swedes saved the "Vasa"?
Seventh, there is the question of the Barford area. This is a large early Bronze Age site which is in danger of destruction, and I ask whether the Department is going to take any action.
I refer to the letter to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Housing and Construction of 27th July from the dynamic Martin Biddle. To save time I shall not go through the letter other than to


say that we would like a breakdown of the allocation of grant. In this context, the expenditure per capita, in the United Kingdom is 0·38p. In Holland it is 2·4 times as great, 0·91p. In Sweden it is 5·4p, 14 times as great. Other countries are spending significantly more per capita on their ancient heritage than we are. Not least, I suspect the Chinese. I hope the prospect of a Chinese exhibition in Britain materialises.
My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) have taken a great interest in their cities. I should like to refer briefly to a meeting with Professor Maurice Barley, Martin Biddle and others. Professor Barley, the Chairman of the York Trust and the Urban Research Committee, pointed out on Monday that foundations and appeals no longer provided sufficient support in relation to need. Local authority support is given, but the complexity and depth of the sites now outstrip the competence of the local authority to provide matching grants. This is much of our problem.
I am concerned, as is my hon. Friend the Member for York, who has taken such a persistent interest in the archæology of his city, that work at York is to stop on 14th August. York is for many of us the epitome of urban archæology. According to Norman Hammond, and Martin Biddle, the shortfall is apparently £65,000, for many sites. Where work is going on now we rely tremendously on student volunteers, but people need more experience than they did 20 years ago. It is the job of central Government to provide more funds.
It is legitimate in general terms to ask about what concerns me above everything else, the shape of the Ancient Monuments Bill which we hope will be introduced next Session. Does it go further than merely to tidy up the Walsh Committee Report? Which of the Walsh recommendations do the Government not intend to implement? If they do not go further than Walsh, what will the Act do about the problems outlined in "The Erosion of History"? I refer to the meeting of Rescue on 29th April last year. Perhaps a Green Paper would be the answer.
The next subject is the preservation of churches. I praise the work of the Historic Churches Preservation Trust and many others. I want to refer to Norfolk and discussions I have had with Lady Harrod and others. The situation in Norfolk will apply in Devon and a number of other underpopulated areas, where in total there are 659 pre-1700 churches. Many of their communities cannot maintain them, but there are shining examples of what can be done. Worsted, a place with 300 inhabitants, raised £40,000 out of the £60,000 necessary. That is commendable, but not every community has that kind of spirit. What is at stake is our medieval heritage. I praise the county town of West Lothian and what the Rev. David Steel has done at St. Michael's, Linlithgow. The problem is known to the Department. If it were not, the eloquent exhibition in Westminster Abbey would prove the point.
I wish now to make my first major carp. This relates to the Finance Bill. Norwich, of all places, is vitally concerned with the problem. The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) said on 19th July:
I come to one other odd anomaly, and now I refer to historic churches and other buildings. Many of us on this side of the House feel that we were badly treated because last week … their proposal"—
on value added tax—
would not have gone through had we not been given an assurance that the following day there would be a large grant made to historic churches. That statement was made to us sitting here in a determined group, who stayed sitting here for two or three minutes when the Division Bells rang, and then we heard that this great grant would he coming the following day. There were enough of us to take away the Government's majority.
Then he expressed his sense of let-down:
There is no doubt whatsoever that that other night there were enough of us here to have taken away the Government's majority in the Lobby."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1972; Vol. 841, c. 662–3.]
The Minister is a former Whip. I do not chide him personally, but the fact is that there is a feeling of let-down. An announcement should be made about the kind of help, not necessarily through the tax system, being given to the historic churches.
Finally, I come to the Nature Conservancy, a subject of considerable


interest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland).
Because there are many others who wish to take part in the debate I will cut corners and refer the Minister, as I have his Department, to the authoritative report entitled "Requiem for the Nature Conservancy" on nature conservancy and also to the introduction by Kenneth Mellanby to the Monks Wood 1969–71 Report. The issue here is whether the executive service agency should join with the Department of the Environment and the research programme should remain with the NERC. It is the research staff who provide the ideas, the scientific know how, the ecological intuition, on which the general services programme is based.
The Nature Conservancy's evidence to the Lucas Committee said three things—conservation and research activities must be preserved, greater administrative independence as well as freedom to speak out in public on important issues must he preserved, and there should be more money. Above all the research and conservation functions should not be separated—indeed, the distinction between them is rather meaningless, in fact.
There are objections to putting the whole Conservancy in the Department of the Environment. That would have been my first choice, but the IPCS has serious objections and the IPCS is to fight, that in itself is a reason for not doing it. I gather from the professional organisation that it does not want this. The matter of over-riding importance is to keep the Nature Conservancy together, not to have Monks Wood or other parts hived off. To put it in the words of John Tinker in an article in New Scientist, what we do not want is a rump of a Nature Conservancy which has become a second-rate bureaucracy staffed by land agents. These are high-quality people we are talking about.
I hope that at the eleventh hour the Government will draw back from their proposals. They are bitterly resented. Yes, personalities do come into it, but this debate will have been worthwhile if only we can have an undertaking that the Government will reconsider their proposals for the Nature Conservancy and rescue it from what some of us regard

as iconoclasm. I have put this into shorthand because I hope that others will have an opportunity of bringing forward their subjects.

7.42 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for his kind remarks in the opening stages of his speech concerning those who work in archæology. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of subjects and to be able to answer his questions I have quickly to fill in a certain amount of background information.
The Government's main responsibilities under the Ancient Monuments Acts are the protection of monuments of national importance against harm and their preservation by offering advice and repair grants and by taking specially important ones into their own care. That there is general support for this is suggested by the rapidly increasing numbers of visitors to the monuments in the Government's care—over 14 million in 1971 which is nearly double the 1961 figure. This has enabled us continually, and rapidly, to increase the funds available. Our budget this year of just over £3 million is ten times what it was 20 years ago—and nearly 25 per cent. more than last year. But we also recognise a further duty, to help secure the prior recording of those sites of significance which must inevitably make way for modern development. Although this is not of such interest—for instance visually—to the general public it is certainly most important for archæology. Here we try to arrange the necessary archæological investigation which often, but by no means always, consists of an excavation. We undertake some ourselves and arrange for others to be done by local societies and so on with the help of grants from us. The Government were concerned with over 150 such excavations in 1971.
The measure of our effort here is shown by the figures. Our allocations have increased at a much greater rate than have those for our general ancient monuments purposes—in spite of the much greater public appeal of the latter. In fact our allocation for excavations has multiplied nine-fold over the past nine years and now stands at £311,000. This is nearly 50 per cent. more than last year:


and within the total the increase for highway excavations—the hon. Gentleman appreciates the importance of this matter—is over 100 per cent.
However, in spite of this very considerable increase over last year a real problem has suddenly arisen. On the one hand, the increase has raised the expectations of archaeologists so that applications have been made for extended or additional programmes. On the other hand, as I understand it, archaeologists have met with unexpected difficulty in raising money from other sources. The result has been that even our vastly increased allocation has now all been earmarked and societies making new or additional bids have, of course, had to he told this.
The hon. Gentleman said that he thought that all funds should be provided by the Government.

Mr. Dalyell: I was then referring to the difficulty of matching funds.

Mr. Eyre: If I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman I apologise, but I am sure that we both welcome the efforts of Rescue and other organisations to raise money for this important work. However, we have not cancelled or curtailed any grants already promised. Nor are we taking the line that no new bids can be entertained this year even if they are for something really important. We have made no declaration other than that we would consider important matters.
It would, of course, be very easy to suggest that the Government should simply increase their allocation so as fully to bridge any gap there may be. But our resources for all ancient monuments purposes are inevitably limited and it would be a serious matter if, for instance, standing monuments were left to crumble through diverting money for their repair to the recording of archaeological sites which are about to be destroyed by development. Nor would it be right to move towards a position where all rescue excavations were 100 per cent. Government financed.
As I know they fully realise, archaeologists must also continue to look to other sources of finance, such as local authorities, the various charitable trusts and public appeals. But it is also up to the Department—and I fully recognise this

—to consider how far we can help towards resolving this sudden problem. What we are in fact doing is carefully but urgently to review the whole position, and our priorities generally, in the hope that extra money can be found for important projects.
I cannot now deal with specific cases, but I noted the hon. Gentleman's remarks about York. However, I will read his speech and if there are any outstanding points I will write to him about them.

Mr. Dalyell: I was impressed by the trouble taken by the ancient monuments advisers in replying by letter to my points throughout the Field Monuments Bill.

Mr. Eyre: I much appreciate that. I assure the hon. Gentleman that any case which is particularly urgent will be dealt with first.
I hope I have said enough to make it clear that, so far from cutting off promised help, we are not only making available the whole of the vastly increased amount we have already found but are also, and anxiously, considering whether we can give further help towards resolving the difficulties now facing archaeologists.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of questions. The first concerned Durrington Walls. The hon. Gentleman will remember that he raised this matter by was of Question on 26th July and that I then reported to the House that I had been given no notice of recent work but was assured by the owners that it was not deep ploughing but rotavation intended to prepare the land for grazing. He will remember that in reply to his supplementary question I stressed the importance of this historic monument and said it was under a preservation order. I also assured him that we were carefully investigating all the circumstances, and I had to make it clear that, till those inquiries are completed, I would be unable to say any more, and that continues to be the position since 26th July.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of Sutton Hoo. We are waiting to hear from the British Museum. The new owner took over only a month ago, and it is felt that he should be allowed time to settle in a little before further approaches are made.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the matter of New Palace Yard. I am certainly able to give him the assurance that there is a continuing archaelogical watch there while the work goes on and that this will be maintained.
He also referred to Bermondsey. I am a little mystified by his reference to points which, he said, had been raised by his right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), because I have read carefully the letter from his right hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the study group in London dockland. It is dated 17th July, and though this letter expresses great concern about dockland, and the right hon. Gentleman is well known for his knowledge of and interest in the affairs of his district, and he describes the general problem, there is no reference in his letter to an archaeological matter.

Mr. Dalyell: He made reference to discussions.

Mr. Eyre: My right hon. Friend replied to the right hon. Gentleman's letter. Perhaps, in view of what he said, I ought to read the letter which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bermondsey sent.

Mr. Dalyell: No. I do not press the point, other than make the general point that those nine miles of Thames-side are unique in Britain if not in Europe and the archaeological considerations are of extreme importance.

Mr. Eyre: The right hon. Gentleman on 17th July, in raising the question of the activities of the study group in London dockland, did not make reference to archaeological matters. In his reply on 26th July my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave a strong reassurance to the right hon. Gentleman in respect of the various points which he had raised, although he had not in any way referred to archaeological matters. I hope that that will be of some help to the hon. Gentleman. It appears that so far there is no written record of any archaeological matter raised by his right hon. Friend.
I pass to medieval churches. The Government are conscious of the problem of preserving the magnificent heritage of medieval churches which, together with

those of a later date, form so important a part of the architectural and historic wealth of this country. There are some 2,000 churches listed in Category A and a further 9,000 in Categories B and C. A fair number of these are medieval. A great deal of thought is being given in various circles to the most effective way to achieve their preservation. There are bound to be many difficulties to be overcome in dealing with this complex and long-standing problem, but the Government approach the question of historic churches with appreciation and sympathy. There is no statutory bar on Exchequer aid for such buildings and if they are of outstanding historic or architectural interest they would, without change in the statutes, be eligible like other outstanding buildings for grant under the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act, 1953.
Nevertheless, outstanding churches in use have been excluded by successive Governments from benefiting from those grant provisions. The main reason is that—largely at the Church of England's own insistence—churches in use as such have been excluded since 1913 from successive legislative controls in respect of material alterations to, or demolition of, secular historic structures. The argument was that the Church had its own method of control over historic churches; namely, by the Bishop's faculty jurisdiction.
This Government, like their predecessor, have always expressed their willingness to consider with an open mind any approach made by the Church authorities regarding the possibility of grants towards the cost of repairs to churches which are in use for ecclesiastical purposes. The General Synod of the Church of England has set up a working party with instructions to resume discussions with the Department on the question of grant aid for churches in use and this is not confined to those of the Church of England. The working party is in close touch with the Churches Main Committee. Preliminary meetings have taken place at officer level with the General Synod and its working party, which is at present collecting information, based on the quinquennial inspections, on the estimated cost of repairs to churches in a sample diocese, Lincoln, and the resources available to meet this, together with details of past expenditure on such


works. The Department is collaborating in guiding this study, and when it is complete it is hoped it will provide a basis on which the Government can decide how to organise any subsequent discussions with the representatives of the Synod on this problem.
The Church authorities in Scotland have approached the Scottish Development Department on the question of grant aid for churches in that country and discussions are in progress.
Any decision on the provision of funds for grants for the repair of ecclesiastical buildings will have to be taken in the light of all the factors involved, including the ecclesiastical exemption from listed building control and the related question of churches which may be declared redundant under the terms of the Pastoral Measure, 1968.
I turn to the subject of value added tax. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House on 12th July
It may be that one solution for dealing with historic churches would be to do so through the normal grant system. The Government are ready to consider such a solution with the churches. But there may be a better answer and before any decision is taken the best course would be for the churches to discuss their problem with the Customs".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1972; Vol. 840, c. 1690.]
Since then the Churches Main Committee has been in touch with the Treasury and arrangements have been made for a meeting to discuss the matter with Her Majesty's Customs next week. We must await the outcome of those discussions. I know that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that any question of the effect of VAT on churches is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Dalyell: May I say, in the fortuitous presence in the Chamber of the hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, that my number one choice would be help to the churches, not through VAT, but through some form of direct grant.

Mr. Eyre: I wish now to refer to churches no longer required for public worship. The present procedures in relation to such churches are laid down in the Pastoral Measure, 1968, which in turn derives from the report of the Arch-

bishop's Commission on Redundant Churches which was published in 1960. Two bodies were established under the Measure—the Redundant Churches Fund whose object was the preservation, in the interest of the Church and nation, of churches and parts of churches of historic or architectural interest vested in the fund by the Measure together with their contents so vested, and the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches whose function is to give information and advice to the Commissioners on or concerning the historic and architectural qualities of any church or part of a church as respects which the question arises whether it ought to be declared redundant, or as respects which questions arise as to its use, demolition or preservation on, or in the event of, its being declared redundant; the board has a duty to consult the Redundant Churches Fund as to the money available for the preservation of any church.
Section 2 of the Redundant Churches and Other Religious Buildings Act, 1969, provides that Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, which restricts the execution of works for the demolition, alteration or extension of a listed building, shall not apply to demolition in pursuance of a pastoral or redundancy scheme under the Pastoral Measure 1968 of a redundant church. Under the Redundant Churches and Other Religious Buildings Act, 1969, the Secretary of State was empowered to contribute £200,000 from public funds over the first quinquennium towards expenditure by the Redundant Churches Fund, and to make grants for subsequent quinquennia. The Church Commissioners have also made £200,000 available for the first quinquennium. The Secretary of State's and the Church Commissioners' contributions are made by annual payments of £40,000 each. In addition the fund can receive up to £100,000 over the first five years by way of one-third of the proceeds of the sale of sites of such redundant churches of insufficient merit to require preservation.
Under Section 66 of the Pastoral Measure, the Diocesan Board of Finance, or the Redundant Churches Fund in respect of redundant churches which are vested in them, may enter into an agreement with the Secretary of State for the acquisition and preservation of such


buildings by the Secretary of State. This would apply only in the case of buildings of such exceptional quality that they merit the highest standards of restoration and maintenance. No churches have so far been accepted though three are under consideration.
I now turn to the subject of nature conservancy, which the hon. Gentleman also raised. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has as yet no responsibilities in relation to the Nature Conservancy. As the Government's White Paper of 19th July, "A Framework for Government Research and Development," made clear, it remains a constituent part of the Natural Environment Research Council until Parliament passes legislation to alter its status. However, in the meantime the NERC will be working very closely with my Department and the Conservancy itself in devising appropriate arrangements for the interim and longer term.
But the White Paper announced the Government's decision, subject to Parliament, to reconstitute the Conservancy; while its research side would stay with the NERC its conservation side would come under a new Nature Conservancy Council, which would be appointed by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment. This would be a Great Britain body, having committees for England, Wales and Scotland, and of course the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and their Departments would be closely associated with the Secretary of State for the Environment and his Department in dealings with the Conservancy.

Mr. Dalyell: The close association that I care about is between research and the executive function.

Mr. Eyre: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall be explaining the principle which is to be applied. My right hon. Friend has already met the Nature Conservancy Committee, and it may help if I repeat a little of what he told them about his intentions for the new Nature Conservancy Council when, and if, Parliament approves its setting up. It will be a statutory body; it will be largely autonomous; it will have freedom to express its views on issues affecting wild life; and, indeed, it will be free

to take a different line from the Government on issues if it is so minded. The Secretary of State plans to fund it by grant-in-aid, so it would have a good deal of financial freedom without the need for detailed approval by the Department of the Environment. The new Council will, of course, have a separate job from that of the two Countryside Commissions, and the Government have no intention of combining it with them.
Naturally some people are anxious about what the future holds. In particular, they fear that the new Nature Conservancy Council may lose its scientific character. In making arrangements to carry through the Government's decision we shall want to make sure that this does not happen. We shall want the staff to continue the present interchange of ideas and experience at working level with their colleagues in the NERC. We hope to see staff transferring from the research to the conservation side and vice versa as may be appropriate, including, for example, in the interests of their careers. We want the research staff to use the nature reserves without impediment. It is envisaged that in future, as in the past, some conservation staff should be working at the research stations.
Present arrangements for inter-working ought to continue, unless better ones can be devised. We believe this degree of integration can be retained, although it will be essential for individual jobs and facilities to be the responsibility of one Council or the other. The Government's decision is not intended to divide the Conservancy staff at working level, but to put each functional activity under a council that can concentrate on main responsibility—research, on the one hand, and environmental conservation, on the other.
The hon. Gentleman has by implication referred to recent Press articles on the Nature Conservancy's future. I hope what I have said will go some way to setting the fears at rest.

Mr. Dalyell: The reason I did not spell out these articles was to save time. There is no "by implication" about it.

Mr. Eyre: If I have been inexplicit, it is because my right hon. Friend approaches his future responsibility for nature conservation without preconceptions, except perhaps the need to ensure


that the achievements of the Conservancy are maintained, and also that it develops its full potential in the widest possible context.
There is a lot to be done to devise appropriate ways and means. My right hon. Friend hopes the staff and the staff associations will play a full and constructive part in working them out. If they do, and adequate arrangements are thus made, my right hon. Friend is confident that, with the growing interest in environmental conservation, the Conservancy can look forward to an expanding and active future.
I know the hon. Gentleman will understand that other hon. Members wish to raise further matters. I assure him that any outstanding points that he has raised will be dealt with by letter from my Department.

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE

8.10 a.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: The tail end of the Consolidated Fund Bill debate is probably as appropriate an occasion as there can be for registering some criticism of the manner in which the House conducts its scrutiny of public expenditure. Although there might be some disagreement about the perfect way for the House to fulfill its duties in this respect, the one thing which no one can possibly doubt is that the way we do it now, the sort of performance which we maintained yesterday and through the night, cannot possibly be the right way for the legislature to exercise its supervision over Government expenditure.
Whatever changes anyone might suggest, they are certain to constitute an improvement over the manner in which we now do these things. I am sorry that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is being kept here at this hour of the morning. My remarks are addressed to him only because there is no one else to whom to address them. My criticisms are levelled at the House and not at the Government. This morning I have no criticism to express of the way in which the Whitehall machine conducts its scrutiny of expenditure. If the House were half as competent in doing its job

as Whitehall, we should all be in a much better position than we are now.
The truth of the matter, although it should not be so, is that the way in which the House conducts its job is determined by the wishes of the executive. In 1970–71 the Government decided not to accept in the same form the proposals put forward by the Procedure Committee in 1969. That is the normal process. It is the Government who decide how the House will organise its business in this respect. I ask the Government to use their influence to make the procedures of the House and the control of public expenditure more in keeping with our pretensions on the Parliamentary control of the executive, and more appropriate to the vast sums of money and the importance of the issues covered.
I am not suggesting that we require a major shift of power. All I am suggesting is that the scrutiny by the House, which in theory exists over Governmental expenditure, should also exist in practice. It is scrutiny and not great control over the executive for which I am pleading. We are voting the Government £16,000 million approximately £10,000 million. It is curious that the House of Commons, which prides itself on its control over the executive, particularly on money matters, should be prepared to vote that kind of money without the least attention to the matter. It gives far less attention to this subject than it gives to almost any other.
Not only are we voting a total of £10,000 million but we are voting the detail in approximately 500 pages of the main Estimates. The authority of the House goes down to the level of £10,000 on various items. The House is technically deciding and putting its authority behind detailed provisions of that kind as well as the total figures. All these matters pass without any oversight by the House except if a Member cares to raise an issue in which he happens to be interested. If there happened to be in the Estimates a figure of £10 million for donkey fodder, or something silly like that, there would be no institution of the House which would be responsible for the oversight of voting that money. No one Member would be more responsible than any other for a boob of that character. The Expenditure Committee would


not be more responsible than onyone else because the Estimates are not referred to it.
We rely, in so far as we do not have boobs of that character, entirely upon the efficiency of the Government machine to ensure that they do not happen. We do not impose upon that efficiency the House's own efficiency to make sure that the Government are doing their job. In the end we shall come a cropper by doing it this way. I do not want to give examples of the kind of thing we are putting authority behind today, but in the Estimate I know best—overseas aid—we come down to detailed figures as low as £30,000, £10,000 and even in one case £1,000 for a gift to the Asian Development Bank. Yet that has not been scrutinised by any House Committee.
What is wrong with the system? It is that estimates are not automatically referred to any Committee of the House. We have the Expenditure Committee, but unlike the expenditure committees I know about in any other legislature, the Estimates do not stand automatically referred to it. In Canada, the Estimates when they come to the House of Commons are referred to the subject Committees of the House. Often the subject committees do not look very carefully at them but they have the capacity to do so and to call witnesses if they wish in order to illuminate the Estimates, and from time to time they make use of their powers. That is quite a considerable safeguard.
In Germany, there is a more elaborate system in subject committees and expenditure committees, and individual members of those committees are told off to cover particular sections of the appropriations. There is a process of dialogue between these individual members and the executive so that one member may feel that if there is something wrong or questionable about the proposal for expenditure by the Government it is his duty more than any other member's duty to find it. In the United States the system is even more extreme, but it would be a false comparison to compare the American parliamentary democracy with our system, because it is not a parliamentary democracy in anything but name.
But one does not have to invoke the practices of other legislatures in order

to justify referring the Estimates to Committees of this House. It surely stands to common sense that a House of 630 Members cannot do an effective job of scrutinising detailed expenditure proposals. It stands to reason that one either passes up the chance of looking at the matter at all, which is what we do now, or one refers it to Committees. People will say that the Expenditure Committee could look at the Estimates if it wanted to and so could the subject sub-committees of the Expenditure Committee. So they could. But they do not, and they never will unless the House puts upon us in the Expenditure Committee the obligation to do so.
Another difficulty is that the Expenditure Committee is obsessed with public expenditure survey operation. Ever since the House discovered the public service expenditure operation in 1968–69, it has felt that should take its eyes off the Estimates and look at the public expenditure service figures. It was sensible of the House finally to realise that Whitehall did not bother at all about the Estimates and made its planning on the basis of the public expenditure service figures.
It was quite right that the 1969 Committee should indicate that one can examine long-term planning only on the basis of the PESC figures, but it is not right that one should therefore not look at individual proposals in the annual cash appropriations in the Estimates because between the PESC figures and the Estimates there is an enormous gap.
In the aid field, for example, we are told hardly anything about aid expenditure in the Public Expenditure White Paper which comes out every year. We are told only the amount to be spent and a few indicators of the breakdown between grants and loans and so on, and between that and the great detail of 500 items of aid expenditure in the Estimate, there is room for study by a Committee of the House. We have a sub-committee of the Expenditure Committee told off to cover foreign affairs and defence, including overseas aid. Yet these Estimates come to the House without ever having been looked at by that sub-committee of the Expenditure Committee at all. No sane institution runs its affairs in that way. If Whitehall were to run its affairs in that way, this House would be the first to come down on it like


a ton of bricks and say that it was not doing its job properly.
We are not doing our job properly by not even using the Committees with which we have provided ourselves to look carefully at the Estimates. We shall not get this right until we formally commit Estimates to the Expenditure Committee.
The 1969 Blue Book—the first report of the Procedure Committee—which the Government, regrettably, declined to implement as it stood, suggested terms of reference for the Expenditure Committee which would have read:
To consider public expenditure, and to examine the form of the papers relating to public expenditure presented to this House.
The Expenditure Committee, as set up over the last 18 months, has not done that. The 1969 Blue Book suggested terms of reference for each subject subcommittee of its Expenditure Committee:
To consider the activities of Departments of State concerned with "—subject X—" and the Estimates of their expenditure presented to this House; and to examine the efficiency with which they are administered.
The 1969 Procedure Committee Report stressed strongly the necessity for looking at the long-term PESC figures. Nevertheless, in the terms of reference which the Committee suggested for the subcommittees, it continued to stress the necessity for looking at the Estimates of expenditure presented to the House.
I am suggesting that what needs to be done is that when any proposal for expenditure comes to the House, the House should formally refer it to the Expenditure Committee. By a proposal for expenditure, I mean Estimates, Supplementary Estimates, revised Estimates and Votes on Account. They should stand referred to the Expenditure Committee with a requirement that a return should be made by a specified date.
The Expenditure Committee should then refer them immediately to the subcommittees of which it is composed. It would be up to the subject committees to do something or nothing as they saw fit, and I am not suggesting that the subject sub-committees of the Expenditure Committee should go through these every time one comes forward, not even if they are asked to do so. What would happen, if we had a formal reference, is that they would tend to look at them more often than they do now and to recognise

that it was their job to look at them, and if there turned out to be something wrong with them, the blame would not lie equally distributed between all Members of the House but within the framework of the Expenditure Committee on which it happens to serve. I should feel a greater obligation to study the Estimates if I knew that the blame would ultimately lie with me more than with anyone else if something had gone wrong.
There is also the consideration that studying the Estimates is an educating process. If one wants a degree of specialisation in committees of the House, as we have to some extent in the subcommittees of the Expenditure Committee, one of the ways of increasing the expertise of members of those committees is to get them one way or another to take more interest in the Estimates, because there is a great deal of information about the activities of the Departments with which they are concerned which they will not find other than by studying the Estimates.
Finally, if Committees of the House had to study the Estimates, the form of the Estimates would be likely to be improved faster than the improvements which have been adopted over the past few years. Even typographically the Estimates are a mess. If Committees had to study them, what is wrong with them would be likely to be improved more quickly.
The House is guilty of gross neglect in the manner in which it supervises enormous sums of public money. It takes the view that the Government will get their way in the end anyway and that therefore hon. Members need not look at either the totals requested or the detailed purposes for which they are requested. We rely for auditing control on the Public Accounts Committee after the event to see that the money has gone on the purposes for which Parliament said it should be spent, but we do not before the event try, to ensure that the purposes for which it is requested are correct.
I think that we shall put this right in the end, but our methods at the moment are unprofessional and incompetent. They will be put right. It is only a question of timing and we need in this respect to move much faster. Immediately after the creation of the Expenditure


Committee we could not have expected faster changes, but the Expenditure Committee has been in existence for 18 months and it has not resulted in any more rigorous scrutiny of proposals for expenditure.
It is about time in this limited respect to change things so that the Estimates are formally referred to the Expenditure Committee and its sub-committees, so that the House gets a report, which may be a "nothing to report" report, on any proposal for expenditure by the Government.

8.28 a.m.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): As the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) recognised, I am not the most appropriate person to reply to the brief debate that he has initiated. He recognised from the outset that his remarks were addressed rather to the House as a whole than to the Government.
I acknowledge the compliment that he paid the Treasury and those officials of Departments who work on the control of public expenditure. He acknowledged that this has reached a very high pitch of efficiency, one of which Parliament and the country as a whole may be proud. I think it is true to say that the system of control of public expenditure within government that we have evolved over the past ten years—which is a relatively short period—for the vast system of Government spending, puts us, if not in the van, at the forefront of nations in the manner in which we approach the problem.
I listened with great interest to what the hon. Member said, but his remarks were addressed to matters that were not for the Government, and he recognised that, although we might have an influence upon them, they were matters for the House and in particular for the Expenditure Committee.
Of course, Treasury Ministers are bound to be concerned with the manner and the effectiveness with which the House of Commons scrutinises the various documents which we lay before the House covering public expenditure. As Chief Secretary, naturally I have a particular interest in this. Perhaps that is why it was felt appropriate that I should

offer a few comments this morning on what the hon. Gentleman said.
I think that it would perhaps be helpful here if I were to look at some of the recent developments in the manner in which the House scrutinises public expenditure, in order to put the hon. Gentleman's comments, if he is looking for further improvements, in a proper context. When the Procedure Committee considered this whole area in 1968–69 it had a number of complimentary things, quite rightly, to say about the Estimates Committee which was the predecessor of the present Expenditure Committee. That Committee was in no doubt about the continuing importance of the annual Supply Estimates. But the main core of the Procedure Committee's Report was the recognition that the expansion of Government activities, for which not only the central Government but other bodies—nationalised industries and local authorities in particular—were responsible and the extension of the time scale over which the plans for public spending now have to be made, had not been matched by the corresponding development of the parliamentary institutions necessary to scrutinise all this expenditure.

Mr. George Cunningham: They still have not.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman says that they still have not. In fact, very important strides have been made to bring our institutions up to date. The Procedure Committee gave a very warm welcome for the then Labour Government's proposals to publish an annual White Paper covering the whole of public expenditure. They added a couple of proposals of their own. The first was that the White Paper should be subject to an annual two-day debate in the House, and the second was that the Estimates Committee should be changed into an Expenditure Committee. Our predecessors did not get round to making decisions on the second proposal and this fell to us. I acknowledge that we did not wholly follow the details of the proposals of the Procedure Committee, but we followed the great substance of them. We agreed that a fuller scrutiny of expenditure was desirable and accordingly the Expenditure Committee was established at the beginning of last year.
This was much more than just a change in name, although I sometimes wonder whether the House of Commons recognises how important the change is in strengthening the means available to Parliament to exercise control over the executive. First, the change of name reflected a change in the Committee's terms of reference. These now enable the Committee to give attention to the whole area of public expenditure and to plans for future spending up to five years ahead. This represents a very great extension of the work done by this Committee over that which was done by the Estimates Committee before.
Of course, the Supply Estimates remain within the ambit of the Committee's work and this is made perfectly clear in Standing Order No. 87 which is the order establishing the Expenditure Committee and which says:
There shall be a select committee … to consider any papers on public expenditure presented to this House and such of the estimates as may seem fit to the committee and in particular. …
The Estimates are and were always intended to remain within the ambit of the Committee's work. But the essence of the Procedure Committee's proposals was that the Estimates cover only part of the field of public expenditure. The hon. Gentleman will recognise this. For a great many subjects one needs to know what other public bodies were doing before forming a view on the contribution made by voted expenditure.
Furthermore, the Estimates cover only one year, and it is now recognised that, if one wants to scrutinise expenditure properly, one must do it over a period. As has often been said, it is only in the fourth or fifth years of the period that one can seek to alter the direction of expenditure. The first three years of the five-year rolling programme tend to be pretty well set, and one can make changes only towards the end of the five-year period.
Second—this is, perhaps, an even more significant change—the Expenditure Committee has the right, which the Estimates Committee never had, to scrutinise policy. It is only when one can look reasonably far ahead that it makes sense to consider proposed levels of spending in terms of the policies which they are intended to serve.

Mr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman must recognise, however, that although the Estimates Committee was not supposed to look at policy, it did so. For example, the 1968–69 Sub-Committee on Aid certainly looked at policy, although it was not supposed to do so. But no sub-committee of the Expenditure Committee has looked at any of the 1972–73 Estimates. It might be free, under its terms of reference, to do so, but, in fact, no part of the Expenditure Committee has looked at—or, rather, reported upon—any part of these Estimates. That is so, is it not?

Mr. Jenkin: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman changed the wording of his question, since I am not a member of the Committee—no member of the Government is—and I have no knowledge of what work it may have in hand. The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that the Committee has not reported on the Estimates, and I have no doubt that he made that point to the Committee. But I return to the point which I made at the beginning, that this must be a matter for the Expenditure Committee. The hon. Gentleman asks that the House give instructions to the Committee. That is a matter for the House to decide, not for the Government.
I was referring to the changes between the Estimates Committee and the Expenditure Committee. One other change is that the numbers were substantially increased, and this has enabled the Expenditure Committee to organise itself in functional sub-committees and to conduct a number of wide-ranging inquiries at the same time.
I have said that I do not believe that the work of the Expenditure Committee has yet received, either from the House or outside, the recognition which its importance deserves. The reason is simple. The Committee is breaking new ground. It has been in existence for only 18 months or so, and it has produced relatively few reports. But, if I may say so, it is extremely encouraging for those of us who are particularly concerned with the work of the Expenditure Committee to see the quality of the reports which have been produced, and I pay tribute to the members of it, and, in particular, to my right hon. Friend the Member


for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), its distinguished Chairman. There will be a steady flow of reports, and I hope that they will have a progressively more powerful and deeper impact as time goes on.
Where does consideration of the Estimates fit into this? As I suggested at the outset, it is not for me to pronounce on how the Expenditure Committee should conduct its activities. Indeed, if I tried to do so, I should, no doubt, be sharply told where to get off. But, clearly, there is a judgment to be exercised about how the Committee should deploy its resources to take the fullest advantage of the opportunities for scrutiny now available to it. My understanding is that the Committee has scrutinised some recent Supplementary Estimates; and there are standing arrangements under which the Treasury draws the Committee's attention to the main features of each set of Supplementaries as it is published.
This may help. It may not be enough. We are very willing to consider any proposals which the Committee puts before us if it wants the matter to be handled in some other way.
One suggestion, which, I think, under lay a lot of what the hon. Gentleman said, is that sometimes the Supply Estimates are in much greater detail than the figures which appear in the annual Public Expenditure White Paper. That is quite right, and, naturally, the hon. Gentleman is anxious to scrutinise some of the detail of the expenditure programmes. What I can tell him—I am sure that, as a member of the Committee he is aware of it—is that the Expenditure Committee has been taking full advantage of its increased opportunities to call for detailed comments on a variety of expenditure programmes.
At the latest count Government Departments had submitted about 150 memoranda in response to requests by the Committee. I am not complaining about this: in fact I am entitled to say that it reflects a genuine willingness on the part of the Government to ensure that the House can exercise a more effective scrutiny over public spending.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the form. We are aware of the complaint, and a great deal of work is going on to try to change the form, because clearly

it ought to reflect the arrangement of public spending that appears in the White Paper so that the figures can be tied up and the detailed expenditure by functions rather than by spending authorities can be reflected in the Estimates. But one has always to recognise that the Estimates have the function of enabling Parliament to vote expenditure by a spending authority, and therefore that vote has to be reflected in the Estimates. A good deal of work is going on, and we hope eventually to be able to put some proposals before the House for consideration.
The Expenditure Committee goes out of its way to see that the material provided by Government Departments is published, but I do not think that right hon. and hon. Members who do not happen to be members of the subcommittees begin to be aware of how much material is available, both as evidence tendered to the Expenditure Committee and its sub-committees and in the sub-committees' own reports. The most worrying aspect of the matter is the limited extent to which the House of Commons as yet appears to have taken on board the significance of the changes that have been made.
It may be that if we changed the Standing Order, and if we gave an instruction to the Committee to look at the detailed Estimates, somehow this would change the position. But I doubt it, because what the House of Commons is primarily concerned with is policy, and policy is far more effectively scrutinised in the programmes set out over the five-year period involving all the spending authorities concerned with a particular head of expenditure. If one considers education, one has the local authorities as well as the Department. I merely mention that as one example. By scrutinising central Government Estimates one gets only the vote figures for one year.

Mr. George Cunningham: That is all very well. The Government ask us to vote this lot, not to vote the PESC figure. If the Government say that they will not ask hon. Members to vote all that detail because they know that hon. Members do not read it, we can make other arrangements, but as long as we are asked to vote it, we have to look at it. That


is the weakness of the stress being placed by the Minister on the rationality of looking into this.

Mr. Jenkin: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is paying more attention to the form than to the substance. The substance of the matter is to be found in the policies which find their expression in the programme in the public sector over the years, with all the spending of the spending authorities lumped together. That is in the White Paper and is elaborated by the memorandum. The Estimates are the form in which the authority to spend can be conferred by the House on a spending authority, and there is nothing to prevent the hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends from devoting such scrutiny to these Estimates as he chooses. No doubt he will seek every opportunity to pursue those areas in the Estimates which attract his attention.
I would place much greater importance on trying to get the House as a whole to recognise the importance of the work being done by the Expenditure Committee, the significance of the reports it produces, the effect they can have upon the evolution of policy within Government Departments. This is a much more important part of the function of scrutinising public expenditure than to comb through the detailed Estimates which are produced for one year's expenditure and only for the central Government expenditure which is sanctioned by vote.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. No doubt he will use his influence in the Committee to seek to persuade it to devote more of its resources to the Estimates. But I believe, bearing in mind the appropriate degree of importance which attaches to the functions which I have outlined, that the Government will find it difficult to introduce a Motion of the sort for which I think the hon. Gentleman was asking. The Expenditure Committee is in its early stages, producing valuable reports. I am sure that its work will become of greater importance as it gathers experience and as the whole process becomes more familiar. I should like the House to feel that it can take a greater interest in the reports of the Committee before obliging the Committee to take on board new functions of the sort the hon. Gentleman suggested.
I have probably not answered all the hon. Gentleman's points. That would be difficult in this short debate. But we shall study most carefully what he said. I hope that he will at any rate feel that if we carry on as we are for the present we are evolving a vastly better machine for scrutiny than the House has ever had before.

COMPANIES ACT

8.47 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The subject I wish to raise is officially the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry—the enforcement of the Companies Act. What I say will apply to the present Minister and ministerial team and the Government as a whole because obviously the present Minister and the Government are responsible for the Department. But it will be an attack upon the Department going back for many years. When I castigate the present ministerial team, I am really castigating the Department as a Department. There has been not only neglect by the Department but, to put it quite mildly, the scandal of the Department's deliberately aiding and abetting the breaking of the law.
During the past few weeks we have had the unusual experience of seeing the great rapidity with which the Government can get the law into action when they want. I refer of course to the episode of the five dockers, of the container dispute involving the Transport and General Workers' Union. Within a matter of a few weeks the law in all its majesty has been brought into action. Within a few weeks we have seen the case go from the lower court to the High Court, to the Court of Appeal and even to the House of Lords. Normally it takes months and sometimes years for cases to reach the House of Lords on appeal. I am amazed to see how the Government can act when they want and yet do not act when they should.
For years a large number of companies and their directors have been deliberately and persistently breaking the law yet no action has ever been taken against them. There has been a large number of companies which have had their actions reported to the Department of Trade and


Industry and, strange as it may seem, we have never seen the Official Solicitor, the Attorney-General or the Department come along to carry out the statutory duties imposed upon them by Parliament under the Companies Act. The Act lays certain duties and obligations upon the Minister and his Department. Not only have they failed to carry out those duties but when they have been requested to do so by all sorts of people they definitely said that they will take no action.
Having made the charges I should like to go through some of the offences which have been taking place over the years, in the last 12 years to my knowledge, because I have been trying for that long to get some action. First there is the issue of false and illegal prospectuses and statements on flotations. There is the failure to have properly elected directors. All of this is contravening the Act. There is the failure to hold proper company meetings, the failure to issue company accounts and auditors' reports and the failure to send in company returns to the Registrar-General.
On that point, I saw in the Observer that there were hundreds and possibly thousands of public companies which year after year failed to give the returns as laid upon them by the Companies Act. I asked the Minister whether he could give me the latest figures on this. His reply was that finding the figures would involve a disproportionate cost. That means that there must be many thousands of these, because if it was only a few hundred the Minister could find them out. The Observer estimated that there are hundreds of these companies yet not a thing has been done by the Minister or his Department.
There is the failure to respond to the demands for action by shareholders when called upon, and the failure of the Minister and his Department to take action when accountants, solicitors, barristers and sometimes former directors of such companies have asked for action to be taken. There has been a failure on the part of the Government to take action when asked to do so by Members of Parliament. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) here and I am glad that he is to ask a question this week about the

Vestey set-up. Here we have an admission by the Vestey concern that it had been breaking the law. We do not find that the Government run quickly to take it to the courts, as they did with the five dockers.
What happens? Vestey wriggles out of it by pretending that it was a slip-up, it did not know, it was not aware that it was carrying out a subterfuge upon the public and the Government by having undisclosed nominee arrangements. If I were to do 50 miles an hour or 60 miles an hour coming to this House in my car and a policeman stopped me, I cannot think what he would say if I replied. "I made a slip-up, I did not know I was breaking the law, I was not aware of ." This is the sort of excuse that a big and responsible concern like the Vestey empire has been making and getting away with for years. Yet its employees, the dock workers, are immediately pulled up and the courts take action.
I have tried all the ways possible, by writing to Ministers, by asking for deputations to be received—which have been refused—and by asking Questions in the House. I received evasive replies and eventually I wrote to the Prime Minister giving him chapter and verse, asking him to help because he said he was all in favour of open and honest government. But even he refused to take action. I make the charge that the Department of Trade and Industry has been guilty of a deliberate conspiracy on the part of its officials to cover up and protect a number of these illegal activities to the detriment of the shareholders of the companies. These are some of the offences which have been going on year after year about which the Department knows.
What are the companies? I should be here until next week if I were to name all of them, but I shall name 13 which I have drawn to the attention of the Department. There are about 30 others. I pick out some of the more glaring ones. I shall name them because I want the opportunity of seeing the Minister later to go into this matter.
There is Hartley Baird Limited. For years we asked for action to be taken in connection with this company but none was taken. Eventually the man who milked it went to another country. Dr. Wallersteiner, who is a supporter of the


Tory Party, was associated with Mr. Robert Maxwell. When he left Mr. Maxwell, he revealed to the Sunday Times some alleged irregularity with which Mr. Maxwell was connected provided he, Dr. Wallersteiner, was given a clear record. Action was taken in Mr. Maxwell's case but not in Dr. Wallersteiner's case. I have a foolscap sheet of offences which Dr. Wallersteiner has been committing for years.
Another concern is H. J. Baldwin. Then there is the Vehicle and General Insurance Company in respect of which we tried for years to get action taken. When most of the evidence and files had been lost, and as a result of persistence in the House, we got an inquiry which showed inefficiency, maladministration, neglect and near-criminal activities by the Department of Trade and Industry. The castigation of and attack on the civil servants in that Department in the Vehicle and General report are astounding.
Then we come to the Competitive Insurance Company and Dollar Land Holdings. The Pinnock Finance Company fleeced and milked millions of pounds out of the shareholders' pockets. The Government knew about it and took no action until the director fled to Australia. When he got to Australia they said that they could not trace him. I see from the Press today, however, that four policemen are to go to Australia to assist the Australian police by carrying out an investigation for the Australian police. But they cannot make an investigation into what has happened to the director of that company.
The next concerns are Three Ways Nurseries Limited and Camp Bird Limited. Then I come to Rolls Razor Limited and the Bloom empire. For four and a half years we tried to get action taken in this connection. Very reluctantly and belatedly action was taken. I was told that an arrangement was entered into by Mr. John Bloom that provided he pleaded guilty to lesser offences he would merely be fined £30,000 and the Government would drop all the other charges. That was told to me by none other than people connected with the case; and that was what happened.
Then there are Associated Leisure Holdings, Sempah Holdings and the Third Mile Investment Trust. Next comes the Poulson affair. There have been some strange happenings here. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of Inland Revenue money and tax have been owing for years. That is admitted, but no action has been taken.
What about the recent case of the Real Estate Fund of America? I pay tribute to the Sunday Times. It had almost a full page article last week on this scandal concerning an American director and a British director. The American director is known to be crooked and eventually went to gaol and I think he is in gaol now. What happened? The Department of Trade and Industry took no action. As far as I know it took no action. At least, I will correct that. I have heard whispers—I cannot get proof of this—that the police have been investigating. I have been asking questions on this and I am now going to ask several questions.
When did the police start investigating the Real Estate Company of America? What date? When were they first asked to investigate the Real Estate company of America? Have they interviewed all those connected with the Real Estate company of America, including all those who were directors and have had association with the company? If not, why not? One of the directors who is a right hon. Member of this House—I refer to the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), a former Chancellor of the Exchequer and a former Home Secretary—has declared, and I must accept his word, that he has not been investigated or been asked to give evidence; he has said that he has not been called upon to give any information at all. It is an amazing situation, is it not, that when a company whose prime director is now in gaol is being investgated the directors associated with the company have not been and are not being investigated? So perhaps we could ask for information on that.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Does not my hon. Friend think, alluding to the sort of inquiry which is going on and relating to bankruptcy proceedings of which the House is well aware, that where a person is alleged to have undertaken fraudulent activity or committed


some illegal activity of some kind or another, there is a very substantial case that that person should be permitted to make his own representations to the court because allegations of that kind may be totally unfounded? It may be that a Member of this House and of the company is put in the most absurd position as a result.

Mr. Lewis: I accept that 100 per cent. That is why I did not deal with the Poulson affair in detail. I touched on it only in passing. I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. That is why I would welcome the opportunity for everybody to have that chance. It is regrettable. I heard a former Attorney-General on the radio yesterday saying that for many years—I think he said hundreds of years but certainly for very many years—this has been the practice whereby these public bankruptcy cases can be held and evidently it is quite in order for someone to be accused or charged in his absence and it appears that nothing can be done about it. I think it is regrettable.
I will say in passing, while I accept my hon. Friend's point, that I read in the Press, and I believe it is true, that never in the history of bankruptcy cases where people face this situation have the Attorney-General and Department of Trade come along and asked for the case to be taken in camera and for the case to be adjourned. Never has that been done. But it is good to note that they can act quickly and that they acted quickly in this case. Why did they not act quickly in other cases?
I agree with my hon. Friend. I would like to know why my right hon. Friend—if I may call him that—the Member for Barnet could not be given the opportunity of being questioned and to put his case with regard to the Real Estate company. I am told with regard to Poulson that there is nothing which can be done because the law has been properly activated. Perhaps it is the result of one of those bad Acts and is wrong, but though charges and accusations have been made nothing can be done about it.
With regard to the Real Estate company of America it was possible and it should have been possible for my right hon. Friend—if I may call him that—the Member for Barnet to have been given the opportunity of stating his case. If

the right hon. Gentleman had had that opportunity, he would not have had to resort to Press statements and would not have been vilified in the Press, as has happened. I am sure he would welcome the opportunity to have his case stated properly to the police who, I am told, have been investigating the case.
I shall come on to the Pinnock case and I have mentioned the case of Dr. Wallersteiner. It would take too long to go into all these cases but I would ask the Minister to look at the debate initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) on 28th May, 1971, which was over a year ago. He then gave all the details and quotations in the case of the Pinnock set-up and the "rackets" which were worked. I can give the Minister a lot more information if he likes to have it.
There are hundreds of companies which have not sent in returns and yet no action is taken against them by the Government or by the Department of Trade and Industry. Attempts are made to cover up. When I write and say that a certain company has not been making any returns, does the Minister reply "Yes, we shall take action"? No, the Department takes no action at all. The approach in the Department is "Let us try to sweep it under the carpet. Let us change it around from Department to Department. Let us give evasive replies to Members of Parliament. Let us cover it up and hope that in the course of time it will be lost. If eventually there is a demand for an inquiry and unfortunately it has to take place, most of the papers or records will have been destroyed or lost and therefore nothing can be proved and no action taken." I say that this is a deliberate attempt on the part of the Department of Trade and Industry to see that these things are not properly dealt with.
If I were to go into the whole list of 30 or 40 companies, it would take up too much of the time of the House and would incur the displeasure of the Chair. I shall let the Minister have five foolscap pages setting out chapter and verse relating to these companies where millions of pounds have been fleeced out of the pockets of the ordinary investing public by known crooks running known crooked companies, and not a thing has been done


about it. I claim that action should have been taken and I regret the fact that when I write to the Prime Minister on this subject asking him to take action, he refuses to do so and even refuses to see a deputation.
I do not accept that this is true, but when my constituents write to me saying that they believe some of the Ministers might be involved in some of these scandals, I have told them that I do not believe it. They then say "If that is the case, why does the Prime Minister refuse to meet you? Why do Ministers refuse to take action, why do they refuse to carry out the Act?" It is hard to give answers. When we ask that a deputation should be allowed to see the Prime Minister to discuss the maladministration, neglect and deliberate evasion by the DTI, he refuses to give any help or assistance at all.

Mr. John Wells: I am not trying to encourage the hon. Gentleman to lengthen his speech, but if the subject is as important as he says surely it would be much more in the interests of the House and of the nation that he should read out the list, however tedious it might be, so that the names of these companies should be known to all.

Mr. Lewis: I agree, but I have already read out 13. The hon. Gentleman has only just entered the Chamber. The Minister has about another 30 names. If the hon. Gentleman would like me to, I shall table a Question to the Minister. I have already done that, asking that it all be published, but the Government have refused. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will join me in tabling a joint Question asking the Minister to publish—although perhaps he will give an answer now—for any period of time over which he likes to go back, and the longer the better, the number of companies which have been reported to him and the action requested by shareholders, barristers, solicitors, accountants and Members of Parliament of both major parties but on which no action has been taken.
I said that I would mention Dollar Land. This is the most glaring example of all, but it is typical of others. The Dollar Land Holding Company is the most notorious of the lot. It was floated in 1960 by a group of persons associated then with a Mr. Kenneth de Courcy, who

used then to send to hon. Members of the House a news sheet of secret happenings in Rhodesia and so on. For another offence not connected with this, Mr. Kenneth de Courcy served a term of imprisonment. Shareholders in that company were sent notoriously false prospectuses of wrong information, the details of which I shall eventually give. From that day to the present, they have been given no assistance or protection in relation to the false prospectuses that have been issued on the flotation of companies. But since then it has got worse.
Since 1960 there has been a succession of so-called directors on the board. With the exception of one person, Mr. Hugh Nicholson, who was a reputable accountant, there has never been a reputable board of directors or a carrying out of the provisions of the Companies Act. There has been complete contravention of almost all sections of that Act. There have not been legally appointed directors or legal company meetings. Proper company accounts and returns have not been sent to the Registrar of Companies or the shareholders. There was one instance where eventually, due to my persistence and that of other hon. Members, we got a three-year report and accounts published. But we now find that even that was such that the auditors refused to endorse or sign the report and accounts as being accurate.
Nothing has happened, except that one of these men—again an American gentleman—a Mr. Gottesman, who admitted that he never held qualifying shares, got hold of the Company and issued a statement that he would establish a blue-white diamond set-up. We found eventually that the shares which floated at 28 shillings dropped to 14 shillings. They are worthless now and the share quotation was suspended years ago. No one knows exactly what happened. I pay tribute to the Conservative Sunday Telegraph, which has been trying for years to have this company investigated and some action taken.
I agree with the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells). I hope he will join me in tabling Questions seeking publication of information about all these various companies which have been breaking the law in circumstances of which the Minister knows or should know. If five dockers break the law,


within days or weeks action is taken. Therefore, why should not these people be proceeded against? I pay a tribute here. One company director was eventually caught, after years of persistence by hon. Members. Mr. Savundra was caught. But the others have got away with it. There has been no action. How often does one read of company directors going to gaol for this crookedness and wickedness of robbing poor people of their hard-earned cash? It is rare indeed.
I mentioned the John Bloom business. I was told by one of those connected with the case that he knew he would not go to prison because he had already been told that if he confessed to a minor offence he would be fined only £30,000 and all the other charges would be dropped. I was told this before the case was settled, and that eventually happened.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I go a long way with my hon. Friend in his argument, but this is a montrous assertion to make. That case could not be and was not settled. I know something about that case through a friendship with one of the principal lawyers involved in it. It is a monstrous allegation that the case was "fiddled" and fraudulently settled. In fact, the full facts of the matter were investigated by the learned judge and a certain conclusion was reached.

Mr. Lewis: I am not making charges or allegations; I am making a statement of fact. I can only repeat that I was told by one of those connected with the case who was up on a charge what the result would be even before the case was finished. He told me that this would be the result, and this was the result. That is all I know. This is a statement of fact. Whether there was any jiggery-pokery I do not know, but I assure my hon. Friend that a former Member of this House, Mr. Richard Reader Harris, met me during the process of the case of Mr. John Bloom and told me that his case would come after John Bloom's case but that he would not have much to worry about because it had been agreed that this would be the way it would be settled, and this eventually happened. That is the only case I know about where what I term action was taken. After all £30,000, bearing in mind the sums involved, was negligible.
I received a letter only this week from a constituent who, wrongly of course, put money into Dollar Land Holdings and saw it go completely. Therefore, I suggest, it is incumbent upon the Department of Trade and Industry to carry out the duties imposed upon it by Parliament. If it cannot carry out those duties because of insufficient staff, I suggest it should come to the House and ask for more staff. If its powers are not strong enough, again I suggest it should come to the House and ask for more powers so that it can take action. I believe the Department has enough power and that it should take action quickly, not wait years, to ascertain whether such companies on the borderline may have something wrong with them.
I mentioned Dollar Land Holdings. In that situation barristers and solicitors acting for the company, and indeed former directors, honourable men who were manoeuvred out by this American gangster, as I call him, asked for investigations to be made, but no action was taken.
I ask the Minister for an assurance that all these companies to which I have referred will be investigated. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central that if persons connected with any of the companies I have mentioned wish to come forward to put their side they should be given the opportunity of giving the details. In such cases perhaps assistance might be given before the companies get into difficulties.
I ask the Minister to look into this matter and to agree to meet me with a deputation of the shareholders of the companies concerned. I will show him where millions and millions of pounds have been fleeced out of the pockets of the shareholders. Let him meet the shareholders and me so that we can ask him to have the matter thoroughly investigated and a proper committee of inquiry set up.

9.21 a.m.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has pressed his case with his usual vigour. I am sure that all hon. Members, particularly all those who have had ministerial responsibility for company matters, will acknowledge the determination with which, over


a number of years, the hon. Gentleman has urged first the Board of Trade and now the Department of Trade and Industry to follow the case which he supports on company matters. From the number of times that the hon. Gentleman has disagreed in the past with my predecessors, and recently with me, over the exercise of the powers under the Companies Act, I doubt whether he will be imagining that I shall agree with everything he has said.
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned a number of cases in which he considers that certain powers have not been used as they should have been. It would not be fruitful for us to go into them in great detail but I shall mention one or two of them later. Several of the cases which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned have been or are under investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. It is worth recording that, although the Commissioner has made some criticisms of some of the actions of the Department, in none of the cases on which he has reported so far has he found maladministration by the Department.
I emphasise that the Companies Act sets out definite circumstances in which inspectors can be appointed. In some circumstances the Department is required to appoint inspectors. In other circumstances it is given discretion to do so and the circumstances are clearly defined. On occasion, judgment is involved as to whether the circumstances provided by the Act do or do not exist. Most difficult—this is a matter on which the hon. Gentleman's views have most often been in conflict with those who have been exercising the powers—is Section 165 (b)(iii), which provides that the Department may appoint inspectors
if it appears that there are any circumstances suggesting
(iii) that its members have not been given all the information with respect to its affairs which they might reasonably expect.
One of the main points on which we have disagreed is how the discretion should be exercised. One point of disagreement concerns the production of statutory information such as accounts. The Companies Act provides in Section 148(3) a specific remedy for the simple non-production of accounts. I know that the hon. Gentleman has felt strongly over

a number of years that if anything goes wrong it is for the Department of Trade and Industry to take action, but that is not what the Companies Act says and in many cases it is not what the Jenkins Committee, which reported on these problems, said.
There are specific ways in which shareholders, former directors and other people can raise their grievances through the courts. It is one of the essential differences in approach between the hon. Member for West Ham, North and the Department that he feels the Department should do everything and that all approaches to the courts should be left to the Department while the shareholders and the directors take no action. I cannot accept that point of view although it is one which consistently runs through the hon. Gentleman's type of argument.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Department of Trade and Industry should expect an old-age pensioner of 70 or 80 years of age, who has put £50, £60 or £100, probably a life's savings, into a company, to know whether the company has been sending its returns, as laid down in the Act, to the Registrar-General? If such a person approaches his Member of Parliament and asks him to find out, and he discovers that the company is not doing so and asks the Minister to see that it carries out the terms of the Act, which is not voluntary but mandatory, why should not the Minister then take action?

Mr. Noble: I think we all accept that there are about 500,000 companies in the country. According to figures from Companies House, about another 4,000 companies are registered every month. Clearly, even the most active Member, let alone an old widow of 70, could not conceivably keep a check on exactly what is happening in this range. But that is not basically the point.
If there is something in which a company is failing, apart from simply being late with its returns, action very often can be taken. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that thousands of companies are late with their returns, but with by no means of all of them is there any complaint apart from that. Many of us find ourselves in the same sort of position in our daily lives, and I do not


honestly believe that, if the hon. Gentleman thinks we should do a survey of about 500,000 companies and prosecute every one of them irrespective of reason, he is thinking in real terms. I certainly cannot see it in such terms.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the five dockers who were put in prison. But if anyone ever volunteered and wanted to go to prison, surely those five did.

Mr. Lewis: Some of these directors deserved to.

Mr. Noble: They may have deserved to but they did not jump up and down and say "Please put us in prison", which is exactly what the five dockers did.
While it is perfectly fair for the hon. Gentleman to say that some things are very slow, perhaps he will have noticed that in the case of Koscot Interplanetary Limited the Department succeeded in getting a rapid winding-up of this pyramid selling operation. That is at least one mark in our favour.

Mr. Lewis: At last.

Mr. Noble: There are in fact many others. But I find it difficult to accept the hon. Gentleman's approach. The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) found it difficult to accept one angle of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I find it difficult to accept that a Member of this House can make a very broad and almost vicious attack on the civil servants in the Department. He said that their action was, if not entirely criminal, deliberately aiding and abetting the breaking of the law. I accept that we may attack each other as Ministers, because Ministers are responsible and it is for them to defend themselves as best they can. But to make an attack on the whole range of civil servants going back over many years and under successive Governments in the way the hon. Gentleman did is grossly unfair to a large number of people who are working exceedingly hard and in accordance with the best legal advice available to them. The claim that they are deliberately aiding and abetting the breaking of the law I find difficult to accept from anyone.

Mr. Clinton Davis: While I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says about the civil servants, I am not sure that I

can go 100 per cent. of the way with him when he says that Ministers are responsible. I do not think that Ministers in the present Government are. Would the right hon. Gentleman deal with a specific matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) referred—the Midland Cold Storage shareholding? There has been an admission made by the Ulster Bank of Belfast that it held all but two of 1 million shares as nominees for the Vestey family or some other similar concern and yet there was no information filed at the Companies Registry indicating that that bank was holding a nominee.
Is not that a breach of the law and is not the excuse proferred that a clerical error caused the failure to return those people as nominees a grotesque position? Does it not at least demand an investigation by the Minister's Department? Will he give an assurance that such an investigation will be undertaken at once?

Mr. Noble: I will give an undertaking to look at the point. I had not considered it until the hon. Gentleman raised it a moment ago. When I have looked at it, I shall write and tell the hon. Gentleman what I think is correct and what should be done.

Mr. John Wells: In his point about half a million companies, my right hon. Friend failed to go along with the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) that it is only in publicly-quoted companies where these widows get burnt. Will he get together with the Stock Exchange Council now that there is unity and get some return of publicly-quoted companies? That would meet the point and the hon. Member would not have to thumb through half a million.

Mr. Noble: Although those concerned do what they think right to ensure that quoted companies provide accounts timeously, there are difficulties with one or two. There are specific grounds on which one can go to the Stock Exchange and explain that one is deferring the accounts for a period and get agreement to that. It is hard to take the point of the hon. Member for West Ham, North that one should then prosecute such people because they have broken the law.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Minister should not put words into my mouth. I am saying that if there are so many that he cannot count them, it could be an encouragement to those who are wrongly breaking the law to break it—

Mr. Albert Roberts: When the Craven Insurance Company went bankrupt, the Board of Trade—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Ronald Russell): Order. It is out of order to intervene on an intervention.

Mr. Noble: We have been ranging over a wide area of different problems and I do not want, at this early hour, to give the House any impression that I am complacent about many things in which there are problems in companies legislation and the law on procedure.
There are real difficulties and problems and I am certainly only too willing to look at the problems which exist, but we cannot act as a super-nanny for every discontented director thrown off a board and every shareholder who thinks he has been done down. There is a whole range of ways in which these people can get their rights, but with the best will in the world the Department of Trade and Industry cannot take on all that work.
The hon. Member talked particularly about Dollar Land. It is fair if I quote something from what the Parliamentary Commissioner said on this topic.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That report has not been published and—

Mr. Noble: It is dated 3rd July, 1972.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. While the Minister and I have privately seen the Parliamentary Commissioner's report on the Dollar Land company, the official report is not yet published—not yet "laid on the Table". Because of the rules of the House, I purposely refrained from referring to it as it was not available to hon. Members. I submit that it would be out of order for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to it before the report is published. Until it is published, it remains a private document. If the right hon. Gentleman were to quote from it, I might want to quote a private letter that I have had from the Parliamentary Commissioner, and I might wish to dis-

pute what the Parliamentary Commissioner may have told the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I supposed that the Minister intended to make merely a brief reference to it.

Mr. Noble: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I was not aware that it had not been published, because it is dated 3rd July. I will say no more about it except that, when it is published, it will be seen that what I have said about the Department has at least some justification and that some of the hon. Member's cornments—I go no further than that—are not entirely supported.
Naturally, I do not want to discuss the Real Estate Fund of America or the Poulson case as both are sub judice and it would be improper to comment upon them. I accept that there are many serious and difficult problems in company law and insurance. It is our intention to try to improve the position steadily and to act as quickly as circumstances permit.
I totally refute the allegation that for a number of years, under both Administrations, civil servants in my Department have been deliberately aiding and abetting the breaking of the law. They have carried out their tasks as they have seen them and as they have been advised, by the best legal advice, was their duty.
I have seen the enormous strain under which they are working. If occasionally they make an error of judgment—and judgment is often involved—that is only human and something to which all of us as Members of Parliament, or in any other position, are liable when under great pressure. I should like to pay tribute to people who, I believe, are working exceedingly hard for the public good.

EMPLOYMENT (CLACTON-ON-SEA)

9.38 a.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: As the House has been sitting for so long, I intend to be extremely brief. However, as I received such an unsympathetic reply from the Under-Secretary for Trade and Industry on 1st August, when I asked for special help to be given to Clacton-on-Sea where there is a high rate of unemployment, that I decided to take this opportunity to raise the subject now.
I drew the Government's attention to this problem in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on 15th December last year. At present, there is only one town of a similar size to Clacton with a higher rate of unemployment outside the development areas and only three towns of similar size within the development and the intermediate areas have higher rates of unemployment. I press the Government to do something to help to solve this localised problem.
The average rate of unemployment for men in Clacton since June, 1969, has been 11 per cent. Last December, it was as high as 13·9 per cent. Unemployment in Clacton is now almost twice the rate for Essex as a whole and more than three times that of the South-East Region. That is why I am concerned. I know that there are fluctuations because of seasonal employment and that figures may be interpreted differently in some instances, but in general that is the position.
I welcome the Government's decision to go for growth and they have helped with reductions in tax, in SET, and by giving help to the hotel and guest house trade, but locally something more is needed. Many, including myself, felt strongly when the firm of Barr Davos left because it was given special incentives to move to a development area. This, as I am sure the Minister can understand, raised considerable feeling locally.
The next stage in the loss of industry in this town of high unemployment is that a horticultural firm is having to close down because of growing fuel prices. I raised this matter with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last year, and early this year. Perhaps this is part of the price that we have to pay for joining the EEC, but this closure will mean the loss of 100 jobs if not more.
I know that it could be said that building licences have been given and that these will provide some jobs locally to these men, but many of the employees of this firm are women and I am anxious to see that long-term solutions are found, and not just short-term solutions. I hope that the Hardman Committee on office development will be able to help, and that more Government Departments will move to the coast.
There are many points which I could raise and which I mentioned in my speech to the House in December. I ask the Government to give the same consideration to this town of Clacton as they would to a development area or a special development area.
I know that much of this problem is to be found amongst the over-50s, but if the Government cannot give special help, will they set up a special committee to consider the problem? Clacton is but a mirror of what is happening in other seaside towns. I am more than disappointed at the Under-Secretary's reply to my Question on 1st August asking for special help. I hope the Minister or the Under-Secretary will spell out the reasons why special help for such towns of similar size is considered to be unjustified, bearing in mind that in development areas and intermediate areas there are many towns with a lower rate of unemployment than Clacton-on-Sea which get special help. I cannot help but feel strongly when I think that the unemployment rate amongst men in this town next winter is likely to have reached 12 or 14 per cent. I ask that the Government should do far more than they are doing to help solve this problem.

9.43 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): This is a localised problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) said. The fact that it is a localised problem and that it comes at the very end of these Consolidated Fund Bill debates in no way minimises the seriousness of the situation which affects my hon. Friend's constituents. I know full well that he has shown very real concern over a long period about his constituency's unemployment problems, particularly in the Clacton area. It is a concern which my Department and I understand and share. We are only too well aware of the problems and anxieties which unemployment brings to workers of all ages and the harm that this can do to local communities and, indeed, to the whole economy.
I recognise, of course, that unemployment in Clacton, as in many other parts of the country, is still far too high. I should mention, however, that the July rate of 4·7 per cent. for Clacton was marginally lower than it was in July last year when it was 4·8 per cent. It is


encouraging also to note that unemployment fell slightly between June and July this year, whereas there was a marginal increase over the same period in both 1970 and 1971. There were 326 notified unfilled vacancies last month as against 271 last year. Thank goodness, the trend is in the right direction.
My hon. Friend referred to the considerable seasonal fluctuations in unemployment in Clacton, of which we are all aware, a state of affairs which always bedevils seaside resorts. For example, last January the rate in Clacton was 8·9 per cent., but, as I said, it fell to 4·7 per cent. in July. These seasonal fluctuations are not new, and, as my hon. Friend will agree, Clacton is by no means alone in having much higher rates in the winter than in the summer. This is a problem shared, alas, by many other seaside resorts, though I realise that it is, perhaps, rather more difficult in Clacton than it is in some.
I do not wish to appear in the least complacent about Clacton's problems, but I should mention another important feature of the unemployment register, to which my hon. Friend was good enough to make a passing reference. In January, the latest date for which figures are available, no less than 38·2 per cent. of those registered as wholly unemployed in Clacton were aged 60 or over. This was more than double the corresponding Great Britain percentage of 15·8.
I must tell my hon. Friend that our area manager's impression is that a substantial proportion of the older workers on the unemployed register in Clacton are in receipt of occupational pensions from their previous employment, and that a number of them moved to Clacton after, or shortly before, leaving those jobs. I am not suggesting that those occupational pensioners are in any way outside the employment field, but they should be taken into account when comparisons are made between the unemployment situation in Clacton and in other parts of the country.
It is important to bear in mind also that the employment situation for younger people in the Clacton careers office area is fairly good. In July this year, 17 young people were registered there as unemployed, as compared with 33 in the same month last year. Notified unfilled vacancies this July totalled 93,

which means that there were more than five unfilled vacancies for each young person on the unemployed register. I am sure that we are all glad that, although there is a severe problem with older people, it is not at all bad for the youngsters.
True, the July unemployment count was made before the summer term ended, but we would not expect the placing of school leavers to present any problems in the Clacton area. All the 200 boys and girls who left school at Easter have been absorbed into employment—absorbed, indeed, by the end of May—and I understand that of the 530 or so summer term leavers all but 120 have obtained offers of jobs and the remainder are expected to be placed in the course of the next few weeks.
My hon. Friend referred to the decision of Messrs. C. R. Bard to move to Sunderland rather than expand in Clacton. The decision to move to an assisted area is one for the firm to make having regard to the facilities which are available. The disappointment in Clacton is readily understandable, but it remains our view that, if a firm is prepared and able to move to an assisted area, where the basic problems are more intractable than they are in the South East, the special incentives should be available to it. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree about that.
My hon. Friend spoke briefly but effectively, if I may say so, in support of his constituents, pursuing this matter as he has done so assiduously over past month and years. He made once more a special plea for help for Clacton, urging that it should become an intermediate area. I can assure him sincerely that we are most conscious of the problems of rural and coastal areas such as Clacton, but they must be considered against the background of the situation in the country as a whole, because the Government have a responsibility to look at a nation's difficulties as a whole. In reaching the decisions on changes in coverage of assisted areas announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 21st March it was necessary to take account of a number of factors including structural decline, dereliction and environmental problems, as well as unemployment, and their relative effect upon the


economy of various parts of the country. After very careful study our conclusion was that priority must be given to areas where the basic problems are far more intransigent than in the South East and East Anglia.
There are many other rural and coastal areas with even more acute problems than Clacton, even though my hon. Friend might not believe it, and I expect that many of his constituents might not believe it, either, but I assure him that that is the case. His area's prospects seem to be a good deal better than those of a number of comparable parts of the country. Government financial incentives are only one of a number of factors of which industrialists take account when considering a move, and I do not believe that intermediate area status would solve Clacton's unemployment problem.
I submit to my hon. Friend and to the House that we can best solve Clacton's unemployment problems by expanding the national economy. Indeed, that is the way in which we can solve the country's unemployment problem. I need hardly remind someone like my hon. Friend of our absolute determination to secure sustained economic growth over a prolonged period and thus to reduce unemployment in Clacton and elsewhere.
I should, however, like to emphasise the extent of the measures that we have introduced to secure that objective. Since June, 1970, we have reduced taxation by more than £3,000 million. Free depreciation on all plant and machinery for use in both service and manufacturing has been extended to the whole country, and there is also an initial 40 per cent. tax allowance on industrial buildings. Other measures which will help to increase demand include increases in social security payments, the removal of hire-purchase controls in July last year and the repayment of post-war credits. All this represents a very substantial stimulus to industrial investment and to consumer expenditure, as I believe any unbiased person will recognise, and the substantial reduction in seasonally adjusted unemployment figures for Britain since April shows that these measures are working, and I firmly believe that they will go on working.
In view of its proximity to London and the rest of the South East, Clacton

is well placed to benefit from the continuing expansion which we expect as the economy feels the full benefit of the policies which we are advancing. I recognise that there is a difficult problem at Clacton, and while I cannot promise special aid for that area, I can assure my hon. Friend—and I know that he will continue to do his duty by badgering us about it—that we shall pay special attention to the problem and study it closely. Although some of the matters to which my hon. Friend referred come under the Department of Trade and Industry, the facilities of my Department are available to provide help and we are conscious of the duty that we have to discharge in that part of Essex.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee this day.

INTERNATIONAL TIMES (PROSECUTION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Jopling.]

9.54 a.m.

Mr. William Hamling: There are two statements from the Attorney-General's office in The Times newspapers of 23rd and 28th June referring to the prosecution of the publishers of International Times and about the rôle of the Law Officers in this. This springs from two articles, again in The Times, by Mr. Bernard Levin, one dated Tuesday, 20th June and headed "Storm under common law umbrella" and the second instalment on Thursday, 22nd June. I thank the Attorney-General for the courtesy of being here at this early, or late, hour to reply to the debate. I assure him that there is no personal reflection on him in my raising these matters. I regard them as matters of public concern, and I know that he does, too.
Mr. Levin raised certain general points in bringing up the whole matter. It is fair to say that he committed one or two errors of fact, which are referred to in the statement from the Attorney-General, but apart from the matters of fact on


which he was wrong there are some general matters that are worthy of more attention than they have so far been given. One of these is whether it was right to bring a prosecution against the International Times under the law of conspiracy. The other concerns what assurances had been given on this matter when the Sexual Offences Act was being discussed in this House and the other place.
From a legal point of view, these are difficult matters. I am not a lawyer, and I hope that the House will forgive me if my knowledge of law is not as detailed or fundamental as it should be. The prosecution followed very much the lines of a previous prosecution, in the Ladies Directory case, in which a man called Shaw was prosecuted for publishing a directory which contained the addresses of prostitutes, and in which the prostitutes advertised their services.
In his judgment in the Shaw case, the noble Lord, Lord Simonds, said:
In the sphere of criminal law there remains in the Courts of law a residual power to enforce the supreme and fundamental purpose of the law, to conserve not only the safety and order but also the moral welfare of the state, and it is our duty to guard it against attacks which might be all the more insidious because they are novel and unprepared for.
He forecast in that judgment a possible case similar to the one relating to the International Times, asking:
Would it not be an offence if, even without obscenity, such practices were publicly advocated and encouraged by pamphlet and advertisement.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Reid, dissented. He said:
There are wide differences of opinion as to how far the law ought to punish immoral acts which are not done in the face of the public. Parliament is the proper, and the only proper, place to settle that. … Where Parliament fears to tread it is not for the Courts to rush in …".
I turn now to the Attorney-General's reply to Bernard Levin, dated Friday, 23rd June. I shall not dwell on the obvious matters of fact on which Bernard Levin was wrong. For example, the Attorney-General pointed out that it was not he who brought the prosecution but my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones).
I come to the matters which are of much wider consequence, the question

of the assurances given in Parliament when the Sexual Offences Bill was being discussed. The Attorney-General's statement refers to assurances given in 1964, that publishers would not be prevented from pleading the defence of public good when charged with publishing on obscene article. The assurances given did not apply where the essence of the offence was incitement to commit homosexual acts rather than the publication of an obscene article.
The Attorney-General quoted one of his earlier statements, when he was the Solicitor-General in July, 1964, and said:
The examples which were given by the learned Law Lords of conspiracies to corrupt public morals were all cases of inciting persons to commit acts of lesbianism or, before 1907, to commit incestuous acts, or inciting persons, if the Wolfenden proposals were enacted into law, to commit homosexual acts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1964; Vol. 698, c. 315.]
I should like to direct his attention to the debate in another place on 23rd May, 1966, when Baroness Wootton moved a new Clause specifically on this matter of conspiracy.
The new Clause read:
Conspiracy
It shall not be an offence to conspire or attempt to commit a homosexual act which by virtue of this Act is not itself an offence.
The noble Lady went on specifically to refer to the Ladies' Directory case and said:
We are still a little disturbed by the possible consequences of the Ladies' Directory case, and the words used in that case"—
and she then quoted the words of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds:
Let it be supposed that at some future … date homosexual practices between adult consenting males are no longer a crime. Would it not be an offence if, even without obscenity, such practices were publicly advocated and encouraged by pamphlet or advertisement?
The noble Lady went on to say:
The noble and learned Viscount is there referring to conspiracy in a rather wider sense than my Amendment, which refers only to the conspiracy to perform the act as distinct from advertising or flaunting it.
But I am also disturbed at some observations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin, in his recent book on The Enforcement of Morals where he said:
' … If homosexuality were to cease to be per se criminal and two men were to be similarly charged with flaunting their relationship in public, a jury today might be expected … to convict.'


The noble Lord, Lord Stonham replied to the debate and made statements which Baroness Wootton regarded as an:
… unqualified assurance that we are not likely to be in trouble on the narrower issue raised in my Amendment.
It seems that the substance of this debate is a matter of misunderstanding or disagreement as to what assurances were given. I must say, reading what my noble friend, Lord Stonham said, there does seem to be no doubt, in my mind at least, as to the nature of this assurance. He said:
My noble Friend's Amendment deals with two unconnected matters; first, conspiring to commit a homosexual act which is not an offence; and second, attempting to commit a homosexual act, which is not an offence. In both cases my noble Friend wishes to secure that the activity is not an offence.
He goes on to say that the cases:
make it clear that there must always be a public element in the conspiracy for it to be a crime. Thus, Lord Alvestone, giving judgment in a case about conspiracy, distinguished between 'acts which are merely improper or immoral and those which tend to produce a public mischief.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 23rd May, 1966; Vol. 274, c. 1199–1203.]
There is some doubt as to how much assurance was given. Nevertheless, many people who supported the Bill when it was debated in another place and in this House thought that some assurances had been given.
This prosecution and this whole question of what assurances were given raise some very great difficulties about an Act which permits things to take place which some people may consider to be immoral or offensive in the deepest sense, and yet the law says that these acts are legal and are permitted. The question arises as to how far reference to these acts may be regarded as a public affront. There are grave difficulties about this—about homosexuals meeting, about arrangements that homosexuals may make in order to meet, particularly bearing in mind other sexual acts between heterosexuals which may follow meetings which can be advertised and which nobody seems to worry much about. There seems to me a difference in fact between the two cases.
It might help if we had some clarification from the Attorney-General. Some alteration of the law may be required, but

I understand that I should be out of order in advocating any such change in an Adjournment debate. I always like to stick to the rules, but there is no doubt in my mind that such a change would be a good thing. I think particularly of social workers operating in this field who as a result of this judgment and the interpretation of the law given by the Law Lords find themselves in practical difficulties.

10.7 a.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): I thank the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) for his courteous acknowledgment of my replying to this debate. I agree with him that these are matters of public concern and that they call for proper discussions. The subject matter of the debate is the statements issued, and to which he has made reference.
The statements were issued, first, to correct errors of fact, to one of which the hon. Gentleman referred, which was the foundation of a considerable personal attack by the author of the original article for which subsequently I received an apology, although none from the editor. Secondly, it was to correct a misunderstanding of law, but, above all, to correct a distortion in the idea of the role of the prosecuting authorities. It is important that there should be fairness and that there should be seen to be fairness in prosecuting. Therefore, this is a matter of public policy and public concern.
The object of the statements was to attempt to clarify the position of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the former Attorney-General, both of whom acted with complete propriety.
The International Times case illustrates that, unless the utmost care is taken and all the formalities are completed. dangers exist when counsel submits and a court accepts quotations from the official record; because it seems from the speeches that the House of Lords did not have its attention sufficiently drawn to all the debates in the House of Commons and especially to column 315 of 7th July, 1964, to which the hon. Gentleman referred and in which I, when Solicitor-General, gave an explanation of the law.
It may be that that is what misled Mr. Levin. One consequence, for instance.
was in the speech of Lord Diplock when he said that no steps had been taken to draw the assurance to the attention of the police authorities. In that very case there had been, and indeed there are records of, consultations with the Attorney-General of the day and the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions—it was a Director's prosecution—before that IT prosecution was launched.
As I shall show, what happened in Parliament in 1964 was that the law was explained to Parliament. I gave then a warning categorically that conspiracies to incite the commission of immoral acts would fall within the category of case which be prosecuted under the Shaw case doctrine.
No court should look at the OFFICIAL REPORT unless those formalities have been completed and it ensures that the whole of what was said at each stage of the parliamentary process is looked at if the court is to include in its judgment any comment on what was said or what was not said in Parliament.
The facts were that in 1960, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out—the hon. Gentleman says that he is no lawyer, but in opening this short debate he set out the position clearly—there was the Shaw case—the "Ladies' Directory" case—which was a case of females advertising their services. There was a conviction and Lord Simonds's speech has been quoted by the hon. Gentleman.
Following that, on 20th June, 1960, the Attorney-General of the day, now Lord Dilhorne, in answer to a parliamentary Question, said that the Director would not bring prosecutions for conspiracy to corrupt public morals in such a way as to circumvent the provisions of Section 4 of the Obscene Publications Act, 1959.
Section 4 of that Act provides a defence where publication could be
justified as being for the public good on the ground that it is in the interests of science, literature, art or learning, or of other objects of general concern.
It was three years later in 1964, after Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller, as he then was, the then Attorney-General, had answered that Question, that I said in Parliament that the law concerning conspiracies to corrupt public morals would include inciting persons to commit homo-

sexual acts if the Wolfenden proposals became law. I distinguished between an incitement and a mere agreement.
In 1966 there was the debate on the Sexual Offences Bill, of which I was one of the supporters and sponsors when in opposition and which was introduced by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). In the debate on the Bill in the other place, which the hon. Gentleman quoted, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord Stonham, in answer to Baroness Wootton's Amendment, clearly referred to the Shaw case and said this:
… at the other end of the scale, a conspiracy on the lines of that prosecuted in … Shaw v. The Director of Public Prosecutions—the 'Ladies' Directory' case—was based on the actual publication of a directory of prostitutes, and therefore it became, as it were, a public offence. Somewhere in between there is obviously a dividing line, and this, of course, would have to be decided by the courts in individual cases.
Broadly speaking, we think that an agreement to promote homosexual acts would not amount to an offence of conspiracy unless there was some public affront involved. If the arrangement were such as to create a public scandal or a public outrage then this would amount to an offence of conspiracy, but not otherwise. As I have said, the standard definition of the crime of conspiracy is that it is committed when two or more persons agree to pursue an unlawful purpose or a lawful purpose by unlawful means. An agreement to do acts which, though not breaches of law, are outrageously immoral or extremely injurious to the public may constitute an agreement to pursue an unlawful purpose, but in none of the cases decided by the courts has purely private behaviour been held to constitute an unlawful purpose. In the 'Ladies' Directory ' case itself, the judgments of the Law Lords showed that though they were prepared to use the offence of conspiracy to safeguard morality, they were thinking in terms of public and not private morality, and therefore of immoral acts likely to reach and affect the public at large. The actual act on which the conspiracy charge in that case was based was, of course, the publication of a directory of prostitutes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 23rd May, 1966; Vol. 274, c. 1204–5.]
The Joint Under-Secretary of State was pointing to an agreement privately to commit an immoral act and distinguishing that from the case in which there was some public act, such as the publication of a directory of prostitutes.
In 1969, the then Attorney-General had to consider advertisements by males, the kind of advertisement that contained wording such as "Dolly Boy Seeks Sugar


Daddy" and so on. The then Attorney-General was aware of what had been said in 1964 in the House of Commons by me as Solicitor-General. He had discussions with the Director of Public Prosecutions and a prosecution was launched because it was held, and the courts affirmed, that publication of these male advertisements was on all fours with the Shaw case, which involved advertisements for female prostitutes. I, as the then Solicitor-General, had explained to Parliament that under the true interpretation of the law, as explained by the Lords in the Shaw case, such incitement would be a conspiracy to corrupt public morals. Lord Stonham in the House of Lords in 1966 had given a similar indication.
In those circumstances the then Attorney-General, having considered those facts, came to the conclusion that this was a proper case under the criminal law, as explained in the Shaw case, to launch that prosecution. It is the prosecution's duty to enforce the law. He launched that prosecution, the jury convicted, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the House of Lords upheld the conviction by four to one. There was in that case exactly what existed in the Shaw case, a public affront, namely the publication of advertisements by the persons seeking particular sexual services—in the Shaw case involving women and in the International Times case involving men.
On the subject of such prosecutions in conspiracy cases of this kind, there have been 41 prosecutions for conspiracy to corrupt public morals since 1961, there have been 33 cases of conviction in respect of 133 persons, and the last of such cases was the IT case which was launched in 1969. Of these 32 successful prosecutions, excluding the Shaw case, two only referred to magazines. One was a magazine called the Black Panther and Pleasure Primer, to which the publishers pleaded guilty. The second was the International Times case to which we have been referring. Two were prosecutions for inducing persons to pose for indecent photographs or films and 28 related to films. As I said in a Written Answer in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) on 26th June, 1972,

none of these successful prosecutions was launched since I became Attorney-General. But the Shaw case has now been confirmed in law by the House of Lords in their Lordships' speeches in the Knuller or International Times case. That sets out what the present criminal law is.
Prosecutors must carry out their duty. It is their duty to enforce the law. Prosecutors do not make the law. Very many people are very alive to any failure by the prosecution to enforce the law.
For example, the House may recollect that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police was taken to court by a former Member of the House over a failure to enforce the gaming laws.
But accordingly, if people produce advertisements by males or by females advertising their wares, calling for partners, reciting the terms upon which they will associate, describing their particular tastes or giving ways of communicating one with another, these at present are offences against the criminal law. Juries have convicted people of such incitements, and judges have upheld their convictions. Therefore, unless and until Parliament changes the law, it will remain the duty of prosecutors—who may not pick and choose which law to apply—to enforce the present law.
In the case in question, this was done in 1969, when the previous Attorney-General launched this prosecution. The Law Officers' Department's statements were issued in June of this year in reply to articles which had been published. Those statements were issued in an attempt to correct the misunderstandings and inaccuracies which had been set out concerning the prosecuting authority.
I want to say in conclusion what I said in commencement, namely, that these are matters of public concern and it is right that Parliament should take the opportunity of examining them, because it is right that Parliament, if it so chooses, should change the law if and when it so wishes. As the hon. Gentleman said, under the rules of order we are not permitted in a debate such as this to make proposals for a change of the law.
I repeat, finally, that this being the law, it is the duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the police authorities and the Attorney-General of the day to enforce the law as it is interpreted by


the judges. It is their duty to see that that is done, and they must not be dissuaded from that because it may be the opinion of certain persons that the law ought to be changed. It is for Parliament to change the law. It is for the

prosecuting authorities to enforce the law.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Ten o'clock a.m.